freddah wrote:
That´s a Gestapo helmet.

It could be illegal to display in some countries. Or at the very least very controversial. Now let me see...it´s like wearing the swastika. More or less the same thing. Maybe not so very smart, if you wanna look somewhat educated.

Gestapo was the Nazis secret police during WWII and their leader was Heinrich Himmler. Go figure.

Just sayin´

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

Yes I am aware of the history behind the outfit. It was a paid shoot and although I don't agree with what they stood for and did, it still was apart of history and I am only playing a role of what the photographer wanted. If you are offended or others are offended by this image, Sorry!

freddah wrote:
That´s a Gestapo helmet.

It could be illegal to display in some countries. Or at the very least very controversial. Now let me see...it´s like wearing the swastika. More or less the same thing. Maybe not so very smart, if you wanna look somewhat educated.

Gestapo was the Nazis secret police during WWII and their leader was Heinrich Himmler. Go figure.

Just sayin´

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

Maybe it's "not so very smart" to comply in "some countries" that don't have freedom of speech. This "lets not talk about it because it may offend someone" is the height of stupidity.

Tony KnightHawk Studios wrote:

Maybe it's "not so very smart" to comply in "some countries" that don't have freedom of speech. This "lets not talk about it because it may offend someone" is the height of stupidity.

Freedom of speech should not be confused with a ban in most countries in Europe on the Nazi party and its trademark symbols.   Seems they have the right to themselves for zero tolerance of any form of media remotely suggesting adoration of the Nazis, whether by intentional politics or aesthetics .  Stupidity is what came out of that ideology, not the understandable reaction to it.  It's just a matter of practicality that flaunting such regalia for fashion, enjoy it or offended by it, will not be shown in public in Europe if it hasn't been given legal waivers which can be obtained but don't come easy.

Laurel Rae wrote:
Okay everyone is caught up now! Anyone else?

Me me !!
[email protected]

outlaw photography wrote:
I'm sorry! I see nothing wrong with it. It's a damned prop!
Most people don't see anything wrong with knives, guns, blood, or all trussed up and hanging from the ceiling by their nipples. So what is wrong with an old German hat!

+1

Ombelico Beauty wrote:

Freedom of speech should not be confused with a ban in most countries in Europe on the Nazi party and its trademark symbols.   Seems they have the right to themselves for zero tolerance of any form of media remotely suggesting adoration of the Nazis, whether by intentional politics or aesthetics .  Stupidity is what came out of that ideology, not the understandable reaction to it.  It's just a matter of practicality that flaunting such regalia for fashion, enjoy it or offended by it, will not be shown in public in Europe if it hasn't been given legal waivers which can be obtained but don't come easy.

When you let gov't decide what you can and can not speak of, stupidity is most likely to follow.
If only there was an example in history of a group following blindly the ravings of a madman causing thousands of people to perish using the excuse "I was only following orders"...I will give you a hint..Its starts with N...A...
I hope this time you get the point I was making.

Tony KnightHawk Studios wrote:

Maybe it's "not so very smart" to comply in "some countries" that don't have freedom of speech. This "lets not talk about it because it may offend someone" is the height of stupidity.

Theres many more a controversy over nudity hun... I wouldnt be concerned! We base our concepts from what inspire!!!! Lets just say, hitler was the problem, the swastika, and germans, were not...? Come on... Who would waste their time murdering millions for no reason other then pure power.      Its one of the most... Symbolic meanings we could display, and yes it could have been offensive provided you posed nude with the hat, however theres a bit of a location/set here so id say its rather fitting and telling of a story.


Almost like... Regular people, are germans too. Or rather germans are regular people too, take your pick!

freddah wrote:
That´s a Gestapo helmet.

It could be illegal to display in some countries. Or at the very least very controversial. Now let me see...it´s like wearing the swastika. More or less the same thing. Maybe not so very smart, if you wanna look somewhat educated.

Gestapo was the Nazis secret police during WWII and their leader was Heinrich Himmler. Go figure.

Just sayin´

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

The swastika is also an indian symbol.. Even during festivals like Diwali it is used. History is my living actually and I think there is a huge difference between being personally offended and an image being generally offensive.

There have been so many adaptations of Nazisim artistically and if this is the prop chosen by the photographer she was happy wearing well then thats that. If you are personally offended by it then don't manipulate it and don't look at it. It is as simple as that. There is no reason to put her down on being "not smart"

Symbolic connotations are everywhere. Just because you know a little history does not give you the right to respond to it in that manner.

You've basically said "that image is offensive and you're stupid" - you have claimed that she is stupid which is offensive to her anyway. That makes you look worse because you have done it purposefully where as the character and image she has portrayed is artistic.

Just sayin' -.-

Tilishia wrote:
The swastika is also an indian symbol.. Even during festivals like Diwali it is used. History is my living actually and I think there is a huge difference between being personally offended and an image being generally offensive.

There have been so many adaptations of Nazisim artistically and if this is the prop chosen by the photographer she was happy wearing well then thats that. If you are personally offended by it then don't manipulate it and don't look at it. It is as simple as that. There is no reason to put her down on being "not smart"

Symbolic connotations are everywhere. Just because you know a little history does not give you the right to respond to it in that manner.

You've basically said "that image is offensive and you're stupid" - you have claimed that she is stupid which is offensive to her anyway. That makes you look worse because you have done it purposefully where as the character and image she has portrayed is artistic.

Just sayin' -.-