[20XX] Puy du Fou UK

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I agree with @rob666 and @venny here.

We live in an inherently capitalist world, so I think it’s difficult to be an ethical consumer at all times.

The reality is that most theme park owners, and by extension most owners of large corporations, are likely right wing, so if you let left wing political beliefs govern absolutely everything you do, there’s not an awful lot left for you to do. You certainly can’t fill up your car with petrol, order anything from Amazon, have a smartphone, use social media or drink soft drinks, to name just a few things. The truth of our society is that most large companies are out for their own interests and probably have a few skeletons in the closet (e.g. tax evasion, poor worker’s rights).

I appreciate that there are scales to these things, and I judge no one’s choices on this sort of matter, but I feel that being a truly ethical consumer and letting political beliefs and ideologies be the sole dictator of what you do is nigh on impossible in the world we live in. I’m not saying that’s right per se, but I think it’s just the way things are.

It's not about capitalism. It's the "hate the artist, not the art" argument.

Michael Jackson created some of the best pop music of all time, but as an individual there are lingering questions over behaviour. I will still listen to his music.

JK Rowling has written perhaps the most adored book series of all time, but she is mired in her own controversy. I will still read her books.

The Times is considered to be the newspaper of record, it's held within high esteem worldwide for its news coverage. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch who frequently uses it, and his other papers, to push and spread an agenda that I don't agree with. I will not buy his newspapers.

You can hate the artist and love the art, but when the artist uses their art to push an agenda you fundamentally disagree with, that's where I personally draw the line.

I may disagree with Amanda Thompson politically, but Hot Ice isn't a pastiche of "Springtime for Hitler" (though it may make it more watchable), so I will occasionally visit her theme park.

 

[venny]

I’m sure if you go into most activities with a preconceived notion or a wont of viewing everything through the lens of politics, you’ll probably be able to complain about something. I think most people visit theme parks are for escapism though, not to nitpick what one could construe the vague political undertones of a show are.

If you visit the park and see the shows, you’ll probably realise that watching a chariot race in Roman times, walking through a galleon or watching a clocktower’s bellringers in a medieval village, isn’t quite the Nazi propaganda you’re portraying it to be.

 

[AT86]

Show content aside.

The owner funds the French far right. Not centre right, not moderate right. Far right.

The racist, Islamophobic, holocaust denying, homophobic, misogynistic, Nazi supporting far right.

The comparison to Amanda cozying up to Boris Johnson or even Adventure Island parading round Farage doesn’t even come close to the stuff de Villiers has funded.

 

[rob666]

I may disagree with Amanda Thompson politically, but Hot Ice isn't a pastiche of "Springtime for Hitler"

Have you seen it recently?
Funny little bloke with a 'tache the other year, I thought it was Chaplin, but now you mention it...

And that is two horror sights in a day, I'm still not over Robinson's wet dream visions...

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Published this morning, The Guardian's holding no punches about Puy du Fou's links to the far-right and Putin in this article covering the proposed UK development.

Far-right links and Putin praise: fears over £600m UK history theme park plan

French family behind project visited Kremlin in 2014 to discuss building ‘Tsarland’ in annexed Crimea

www.theguardian.com

Say what you want about Amanda Thompson. As far as I'm aware she hasn't cosied up to a dictator, shortly after the illegal invasion and annexation of a sovereign state, and offered to build a theme park there to reinforce the false narrative of nationalist superiority.

 

[Plastic Person]

Like most people, my barometer for what problematic art/entertainment I’ll enjoy, versus what I won’t, is all over the place.

But as much as I love a nice bit of falconry, it is impossible to depoliticise politics from history, and this bloke is a modern-day fascist sympathiser. His favoured portrayal of the past is inextricably linked to his preferred vision for a more conservative future.

I’ll hold out for the Minions, thanks.

 

[Matt N]

I think it depends on how (or if) the owner’s political leanings manifest in the output.

It may be (and based on what I know of the park in France, it probably will be) the case that the output simply shows a slightly dramatised portrayal of British history, in which case I don’t think it’s overly problematic.

If the park’s platform is used to actively peddle fascist, Nazi-sympathising propaganda, then I hold a different view. But we thus far don’t have any evidence to suggest that it necessarily will be. From what I ascertain, the park in France is not used in this manner.

Each to their own, but I personally try and depoliticise parks and themed entertainment to a broad extent. Not everything is intended to have a political meaning, even if its owner has strong political leanings. I’m not saying I agree with what Mr De Villiers has done, but I don’t think we have any evidence to suggest that he intends to build a park filled with fascist propaganda in the UK.

 

[Plastic Person]

If the park’s platform is used to actively peddle fascist, Nazi-sympathising propaganda, then I hold a different view. But we thus far don’t have any evidence to suggest that it necessarily will be. From what I ascertain, the park in France is not used in this manner.

I’m not suggesting the park will be home to the UK’s first Tommy Robinson Land or feature an escape room in which you’re role playing as a Pakistani shopkeeper under siege in the late-seventies. But at this juncture in history, representative and honest depictions of history are more important than ever in order to repel fascist narratives. And the founder of this park donates to fascists.

 

[Matt N]

I’m not suggesting the park will be home to the UK’s first Tommy Robinson Land or feature an escape room in which you’re role playing as a Pakistani shopkeeper under siege in the late-seventies. But at this juncture in history, representative and honest depictions of history are more important than ever in order to repel fascist narratives. And the founder of this park donates to fascists.

What do you mean by a “representative and honest” portrayal of history?

I don’t see how a dramatised portrayal of, say, the Battle of Bosworth (for example), wouldn’t be a representative and honest portrayal while also having the dramatic flair that a park like Puy du Fou would require.

If the park promoted, say, the Holocaust as a positive event or did a WW2 show with Nazi-sympathising undertones, then that is absolutely different and highly, highly problematic.

But I’m struggling to see how dramatic portrayals of British history in themselves could be construed as fascist propaganda simply because the owner of the park has far-right political views. Provided his political views are kept out of the park’s output and the park itself is apolitical, I don’t see that it would necessarily be an issue. Your average visitor would be unlikely to know that the owner of the park has far-right political views.

 

[Mick]

The issue is that your hard earned money goes to the park which in turn ends up in the owners pockets, and then subsequently funds things that you may find disagreeable.

It’s a matter of personal choice, as you can find a reason to boycott almost everything if you look hard enough, but I can’t say I’d be supporting this.

 

[Martin]

But I’m struggling to see how dramatic portrayals of British history in themselves could be construed as fascist propaganda

Are you really?

Lots of things can be interpreted as fascist propaganda, either because they were intended to be seen that way, or misinterpreted because it's clumsy, or deliberately misinterpreted or embraced by fascists in spite of the orginal intent (Starship Troopers and Helldivers are two examples of antifascist media that fascists often embrace not because they don't get the satire, but because they like how they're portrayed anyway).

The British far right love using British history as part of its iconography - knights, the Crusades, various things from the Empire, the World Wars, etc. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of things done long before we were born but it's safe to say British history is full of things that have and continue to inspire fascists.

That's not saying any portrayal of British history is intrinsically fascist or anything like that. Just that it's actually very easy to see how portrayals of British history COULD be construed, whether that was the intent or not, as being fascist propaganda. There's so much British history that could be used for liberal or leftist propaganda too. There could be stuff celebrating the Peasant's Revolt, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists, the Trade Union and Labour movement, the Abolitionists, Suffragettes, opposition to the BUF, etc. As with any piece of historical media, you have to ask why that certain bit of history has been chosen, which angle is it being shown from, what could it be trying to say about that time and event and what does that have to do with today, etc.

I don't know how much the owner will be involved and how much of a say he will have in the design of the park, or how much the people who chooses to design it will be picked on how aligned they are with his views. But I can understand why people may be concerned about the intent of the park, before the question of giving money to them even comes into it.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

But I’m struggling to see how dramatic portrayals of British history in themselves could be construed as fascist propaganda simply because the owner of the park has far-right political views.

Where do we start, given that vast swathes of British history revolves around the oppression and subjugation of one group or another, for the furthering of King and Country?

 

[rob666]

...Say what you want about Amanda Thompson. As far as I'm aware she hasn't cosied up to a dictator, shortly after the illegal invasion and annexation of a sovereign state, and offered to build a theme park there to reinforce the false narrative of nationalist superiority.

Give her time Goosey, give her time.

 

[Ash]

For discussion…

Is violence, invasion etc not also the history of the overwhelming majority countries?

Was Britain as we know it now not invaded, subjugated throughout its history too?

Furthermore there are also myriads of examples throughout British history of anti fascist movements along with many other incredible contributions which should be rightly celebrated and certainly do not inspire fascists. (Establishing the modern parliamentary democracy, Founded abolitionist movement, ended fascism in Europe, suffragette movement etc etc)

Although like others what and how history is represented is important, but I’d state as ever the ability to view things with perspective is important. I don’t believe in “both sides-ism” i.e if something negative is shown then something positive should anyway, all items should be shown fairly as there right place in a historical timeline with context.

Also as there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread:

Fascism: a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fascism

Worth adding the modern definition or use of the word “fascism” is generally seen as starting in the 18th century…history existed long before…

From what I’ve read in here so far we seem to be getting torn between displaying history and people’s perception of it, which quite frankly we can’t change. As long as the history is presented objectively we can’t and shouldn’t change it or remove it.