Speaking of being PC...

[laPapessaGiovanna]

 

Each of those international exhibits assigns workers based on their nationality (though not exclusively), and requires the wear of traditional dress while at work. So, in the Germany section, dirndls, in Japan, kimonos, etc. Would we call that cultural appropriation? Is it okay because it's done "respectfully"? Who draws the line for respectful? Is it okay if the national German wears a dirndl, but not the whatever-race tourist who picked one up in the souvenir shop? At that rate, is the whole exhibit appropriation on its own? 

 I think that what you describe is typical stereotypes. Personally I find cultural stereotypes disgusting and ignorant. It's as if the infinite and ever changing complexity of a culture could be summed up/reduced to what we know (not what are, but what we know) as its most characteristical features. I think little of this sort of approach can be described as appreciation, it's more, imho, due to ignorance and lazy oversimplification. As such it can happen with total naivety,  but if it's a systematic approach that never evolves towards a deeper search of knowledge and has nonetheless the presumption to present itself as a legitimate representation of a culture well that's not okay for me, see certain themed parks, certain filmography (ie most films on mafia or on the old wild west),  certain novels (ie Memoirs of a Geisha) etc. 

I don't know though if I would consider this as another facet of what can be called cultural appropriation or if it's better described as a different phenomenon.  Thoughts?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Bringing in the tourism aspect is interesting. I live in a tourist capital (what's up, mouse!?) and there's pretty much an "anything goes" mentality down in that part of town. Over the weekend, this discussion made me think a lot about the International Exhibits at Epcot. 

Each of those international exhibits assigns workers based on their nationality (though not exclusively), and requires the wear of traditional dress while at work. So, in the Germany section, dirndls, in Japan, kimonos, etc. Would we call that cultural appropriation? Is it okay because it's done "respectfully"? Who draws the line for respectful? Is it okay if the national German wears a dirndl, but not the whatever-race tourist who picked one up in the souvenir shop? At that rate, is the whole exhibit appropriation on its own? 

I think that some cultures, more than others, are "trendy" to appropriate and it's interesting to discuss where the line between appreciation and disrespectful appropriation is. 

IIRC, tourism offices from each country contribute to each exhibit.  So, it's fair to assume that these exhibits benefit these countries (for example, by encouraging tourists, which in turn helps their economies).  I took a quick look at the description of the Canadian pavilion, and they sell Canadian products.  So...not cultural appropriation.

[FundieFarmer]

I don't know that I would call it stereotypes, as I definitely do not think that much of what happens at Epcot is stereotypical. For example, I am almost certain that women in Mexico do not wear traditional dress all day, every day, and sit outside perfectly organized curio shops. 

Perhaps I might call it "cultural idealization". What you see when you go to Epcot and the like are the idealized villages where everyone is happy, the food and treats are delicious, the drinks are ice cold, and time is frozen in an idyllic and perfect snapshot of a time long ago. What you don't see is the true culture and personality of the country. In the American pavilion, you will see our historical counterparts gracefully acting out the revolution. It is not at all a true depiction of the violence that both sides faced, nor is it a genuine embodiment of the typical American stereotype. I do agree that this idealization is a vast over simplification of each culture that is represented.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Stereotypes or cultural idealization for me are synonyms, both refer to an unchanging image (and thus irreal) of something. They don't necessarily represent things in a bad way, but I find them dangerous all the same because even if they are positive they are as far from reality as negative stereotypes are. I think this idealizations are, on the far opposite side, the very same reactions to what's different that bad fear-related prejudices are. I'll try to explain better. We are instinctively fearful of what's new or different and we tend to react in two ways: 1. keeping our distance, fighting,  hating and 2. trying to "tame", to smooth away the troubling parts, to keep what we find reassuring and ignore the rest as if it doesn't exist. I think cultural idealizations belong to the second category and even if they are a far less trouble causing approach I find them equally misleading and unjust, only more subtle. It's all the more depressing to me when,  as notices @2xx1xy1JD, we enact our own idealization,  presenting to the world with the face the world wants to see, the most reassuring,  to sell our goods as best as possible.  I'm not saying that this is totally wrong,  I simply want to point out that cultures are so deeply complex that it's really impossible,  imho, to truly understand another culture in all its depth with all the due knowledge and respect. Should we restrain ourselves from being interested in another culture for fear of cultural appropriation, misrepresentations, stereotypes or whatever? Absolutely not. Should we be humble, always respectful, never arrogant or presumptuous in our approach, knowing that cultures aren't something to own but something to live, to enjoy,  to suffer and that we can't claim nothing else than what we live, enjoy and suffer?  Absolutely yes. Why should we take the trouble to look beyond cultural idealizations?  Because it's by far more challenging and enriching, to make a comparison it's the same difference that there's between Memories of a Geisha and Enchi Fumiko books, it's an abyss. Should I brag and be arrogant about it? No, because it would be stupid,  I cannot claim that culture as my own,  but this doesn't mean that I can't claim what in her work universally belongs to all people, that's inherent to being human beings and is often manifested in form of artpieces that don't belong to my culture. 

I know this is intricate,  I hope I managed to explain sufficiently. Sorry if I didn't. 

[Anny Nym]

I think we have a topic here so large, complex and downright indiviualized that the viewpoints of people from different cultures - how they view themselves and how they want to be seen as- are most likely constantly clashing at some point. Like: "It´s totally okay if you do this, but it seriously offends me if you do that! - "Wait a minute, but I thought that would be the same thing as this, I didn´t mean to!"  or in the negative example: " Ha, fudge you. I don´t care!"

That said, especially when the topic of tourism wages in, at some point we have to say that noone of us is visiting a foreign city to see the same bland office building, to eat a cheeseburger menu at McDonald´s and to buy a plain black shirt at a H&M chain store, then go back to his room at the Holiday Inn to watch videos on YouTube.

We all want to experience the feel of a different city, country, culture. And then we want to experience the exact same feel that made us go to Japan, Mexico or Switzerland in the first place. And then it gets tricky IMHO.

 

[Anny Nym]

Adding: Cultural approbation in media is a  very special subcategory.

Memoirs of a Geisha, for example. To many japanese people it is clearly cultural approbation, for alot of people who did dive into the japanese culture it´s a gate book. Even if there are way better written ones, it´s always MoaG.

Dito Gwen Stefani and the Harajuku district. Or even *shudder* whatever that abomination of Avril Lavigne´s "Hello Kitty" is.

Sound of Music: Cultural approbation and a terribly made up story anyway. But the whole world plus their grandma loves it. I don´t understand why, certainly not,  but I let people have their joy. Also there is a whole tourist branch behind it.

And I bet @laPapessaGiovanna has something to tell about the stereotyping of Italians, especially in Gangster Movies. but alas, a whole movie industry...

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Adding: Cultural approbation in media is a  very special subcategory.

Memoirs of a Geisha, for example. To many japanese people it is clearly cultural approbation, for alot of people who did dive into the japanese culture it´s a gate book. Even if there are way better written ones, it´s always MoaG.

Dito Gwen Stefani and the Harajuku district. Or even *shudder* whatever that abomination of Avril Lavigne´s "Hello Kitty" is.

Sound of Music: Cultural approbation and a terribly made up story anyway. But the whole world plus their grandma loves it. I don´t understand why, certainly not,  but I let people have their joy. Also there is a whole tourist branch behind it.

And I bet @laPapessaGiovanna has something to tell about the stereotyping of Italians, especially in Gangster Movies. but alas, a whole movie industry...

Absolutely. What I mean though is that culture shouldn't be cheap, because it's valuable. I have no problems if starting with Memoirs of a Geisha people end up reading Genji Monogatari or starting from the Godfather they end up finding Sciascia and Pirandello. I think it's at least superficial to stop after eating the cheap bait and pretend they know something about that culture. Unfortunately it's common because the main difference between the cheap baits and the masterpieces of a culture is, always imho, that the first ones leave you with a fake sense of knowledge and understanding while the others leave you stunned, in awe in front of a new universe, feeling little and with more questions and doubts than before.

 

[2xx1xy1JD]

Adding: Cultural approbation in media is a  very special subcategory.

Memoirs of a Geisha, for example. To many japanese people it is clearly cultural approbation, for alot of people who did dive into the japanese culture it´s a gate book. Even if there are way better written ones, it´s always MoaG.

Dito Gwen Stefani and the Harajuku district. Or even *shudder* whatever that abomination of Avril Lavigne´s "Hello Kitty" is.

Sound of Music: Cultural approbation and a terribly made up story anyway. But the whole world plus their grandma loves it. I don´t understand why, certainly not,  but I let people have their joy. Also there is a whole tourist branch behind it.

And I bet @laPapessaGiovanna has something to tell about the stereotyping of Italians, especially in Gangster Movies. but alas, a whole movie industry...

To be fair, Maria had written a book about the family, then sold the rights to the story to German producers.  The American rights were purchased from those German producers.  I saw no indication that it wasn't done legally.  The Von Trapps weren't thrilled with some of the artistic license taken with their story, but they also benefited from the publicity since it attracted people to the Trapp Family Lodge in Vermont.

The movie probably did more for Austrian tourism than anything else has.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

To be fair, Maria had written a book about the family, then sold the rights to the story to German producers.  The American rights were purchased from those German producers.  I saw no indication that it wasn't done legally.  The Von Trapps weren't thrilled with some of the artistic license taken with their story, but they also benefited from the publicity since it attracted people to the Trapp Family Lodge in Vermont.

The movie probably did more for Austrian tourism than anything else has.

I discovered the von Trap story here on fj. I visited Austria years ago because I was interested in seeing Wien, the Prater, the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Klimt, Schönbrun, tasting a true Sacher Torte, seeing a different side of our beloved Alps. I think half Europe does for similar reasons. 

 

[Maggie Mae]

My parents both love The Sound of Music. My dad, I think, because he liked the scenery and he lived in Germany before I was born. He's not super creative or ambitious, so it's probably the only film (beside clicking through his Carousel and boring us all to sleep) he knows with that kind of mountain shot at the beginning. Plus he likes the music, and always fast forwards through the romantic stuff.

I imagine my mom likes it because she likes big, happy families. I'm such a disappointment. Anyway, I liked SoM as a kid, the songs were easy to learn and sing. But there are so many more musicals to watch!

[Anny Nym]

To be fair, Maria had written a book about the family, then sold the rights to the story to German producers.  The American rights were purchased from those German producers.  I saw no indication that it wasn't done legally.  The Von Trapps weren't thrilled with some of the artistic license taken with their story, but they also benefited from the publicity since it attracted people to the Trapp Family Lodge in Vermont.

The movie probably did more for Austrian tourism than anything else has.

With the last sentence I have to heavily disagree!

It´s not about legal rights and that the Trapps  (did you know, Maria added the Von in the USA? "Von" is a title and titles were abolished in Austria in 1919) profited from it I have no doubt whatsoever. The Trapps profits from it are also not the point.

 

However, as I said before, if people enjoy this movie, they should go for it.

[FundieFarmer]

"What I mean though is that culture shouldn't be cheap, because it's valuable."

I really like that, LaPapessa.

I'm on Tapa so I'll give you a more thoughtful answer later, but I really, really liked that.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think we have a topic here so large, complex and downright indiviualized that the viewpoints of people from different cultures - how they view themselves and how they want to be seen as- are most likely constantly clashing at some point. Like: "It´s totally okay if you do this, but it seriously offends me if you do that! - "Wait a minute, but I thought that would be the same thing as this, I didn´t mean to!"  or in the negative example: " Ha, fudge you. I don´t care!"

That said, especially when the topic of tourism wages in, at some point we have to say that noone of us is visiting a foreign city to see the same bland office building, to eat a cheeseburger menu at McDonald´s and to buy a plain black shirt at a H&M chain store, then go back to his room at the Holiday Inn to watch videos on YouTube.

We all want to experience the feel of a different city, country, culture. And then we want to experience the exact same feel that made us go to Japan, Mexico or Switzerland in the first place. And then it gets tricky IMHO.

 

You just reminded me of a conversation we had years ago with my husband's family in Israel.  They were very proud of the new shopping mall that had opened up, they wanted to take us for (non-kosher) Chinese food, they wanted to show how modern everything was....and they couldn't understand why we'd want to take a day trip to Jerusalem.  I felt bad explaining that we had lots of shopping malls, non-kosher Chinese food and other modern stuff back home, and we wouldn't travel thousands of miles just to see more of the same.

The paradox is that to them, going to Jerusalem was something that crazy North Americans do.  Real Israelis go to the mall.

[As a Canadian, I can also say that I don't hang around lumberjacks.  I do, however, know how to canoe and do shop at Roots.]

[jaelh]

.  I'm not saying that this is totally wrong,  I simply want to point out that cultures are so deeply complex that it's really impossible,  imho, to truly understand another culture in all its depth with all the due knowledge and respect.

I... agree..  But I'd put it with the caveat, it's just as hard to 'truly understand' your own culture. All of the entirely internalised norms and practices; the naturalised ways of knowing. Sometimes it takes an outsider's surprise/observations to help us see our own culture for ourselves.  

That, and there is nowhere, nowhere, where there is 'a culture'.  Everywhere (everywhere) is a place of numerous 'cultures'.  Can one talk of an 'NYC culture' that encompasses Crown Height Hassids, Hispanic families in the Bronx and the money of the Upper East Side?  Let alone an 'American' culture?   If we can't do that, what makes anyone think we can do it for anywhere else?   I mean, I know we can talk in very very broad generalities, about certain ways of being. But trying to distill What German, Australian Japanese or Italian Culture Is seems an exercise in futility.  

Shorter version: I find the homogenising that takes place when we start talking 'culture' a bit of a problem. 

I also think maybe we all have a imagine culture as a static thing.  This can have really negative effects.  For example, Australian native depends on Indigenous communities claiming title to be performing "their traditional laws and customs" on the land. remarkably, these are meant to be the cultural practices they held 220 years ago, before white people arrived.  It's ludicrous.  Culture is a fluid thing. The 'culture' of white Australia is pretty damn different to what it was 220 years ago, and it'd be absurd to suggest we'd still need to be acting the same way we did back then. Why do we expect certain groups to Keep on Being The Way They Were, otherwise they're not "authentic"?  

Also, what's the difference between 'culture' and 'history'? 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I... agree..  But I'd put it with the caveat, it's just as hard to 'truly understand' your own culture. All of the entirely internalised norms and practices; the naturalised ways of knowing. Sometimes it takes an outsider's surprise/observations to help us see our own culture for ourselves.  

That, and there is nowhere, nowhere, where there is 'a culture'.  Everywhere (everywhere) is a place of numerous 'cultures'.  Can one talk of an 'NYC culture' that encompasses Crown Height Hassids, Hispanic families in the Bronx and the money of the Upper East Side?  Let alone an 'American' culture?   If we can't do that, what makes anyone think we can do it for anywhere else?   I mean, I know we can talk in very very broad generalities, about certain ways of being. But trying to distill What German, Australian Japanese or Italian Culture Is seems an exercise in futility.  

Shorter version: I find the homogenising that takes place when we start talking 'culture' a bit of a problem. 

I also think maybe we all have a imagine culture as a static thing.  This can have really negative effects.  For example, Australian native depends on Indigenous communities claiming title to be performing "their traditional laws and customs" on the land. remarkably, these are meant to be the cultural practices they held 220 years ago, before white people arrived.  It's ludicrous.  Culture is a fluid thing. The 'culture' of white Australia is pretty damn different to what it was 220 years ago, and it'd be absurd to suggest we'd still need to be acting the same way we did back then. Why do we expect certain groups to Keep on Being The Way They Were, otherwise they're not "authentic"?  

Also, what's the difference between 'culture' and 'history'? 

Totally agree with you on this. Apologies if I implied otherwise. To be alive a culture must be lived and living it "physiologically" changes. But I agree this is an aspect it's worth discussing, later, I have to go to take child at school. 

[Curious]

Sound of Music: Cultural approbation and a terribly made up story anyway. But the whole world plus their grandma loves it. I don´t understand why, certainly not,  but I let people have their joy. Also there is a whole tourist branch behind it.

 

Wait...the Sound of Music isn't a true story?  (not being snarky...really asking).   I, as you can probably tell, am not a fan of the SoM and I've only seen it once, I think.   TBH, I'm not even sure I've seen the whole thing, maybe as a kid.   I've never watched it as an adult.

I always thought it was a true story though?

[FundieFarmer]

I think we may be seeing stereotypes vs cultural idealization a little bit differently. I find stereotypes to be truly disgusting, the things you would never dare say, the terrible assumptions you might have of someone from seconds after looking at them that, unfortunately, are sometimes fulfilled. I don't really find cultural idealization to be on the same plane, though bad in its own way. In the case of Epcot, the perfect American village is nothing like what it was truly like in the 1770s, but I don't really find it to be disgusting- just a rose-colored view of what happened. 

[Anny Nym]

 

 

Wait...the Sound of Music isn't a true story?  (not being snarky...really asking).   I, as you can probably tell, am not a fan of the SoM and I've only seen it once, I think.   TBH, I'm not eve sure I've seen the whole thing, maybe as a kid.   I've never watched it as an adult.

I always thought it was a true story though?

That´s going a to be loong post. You have been warned!

 

It has more holes than a fishnet stocking.

What is real: The Family Trapp exists indeed and , yes, they immigrated to the USA and travelled as a singing group. However that pretty much is it.

NOT TRUE: Georg Trapp: never was a Baron, he was a Ritter - Ritter is a title. However not in the rank of Herrenstand  like a Freiherr/Baron is, but a rather "bourgeoise title". And therefor Maria was most certainly not! a Baroness. Ever. I know that may now sound like a really small thing to fuss over, but it is not.

Georg was not a strict, cold carricature, he was  said to have been a easy-going, quiet man. The tragedy of his life was for sure Agathe´s death and the marriage with Maria Kutschera. On further notice, he hold italian citizenship, not austrian. And he died quite early.

Maria, now, she was definitely not that nice, bubbly and happy young nun (she was never a nun by the way - she was a "first step novice", that´s when you think about becoming a nun)  - actually the other way around, she must have been a nasty piece of work. To all the children she was more of a Eislaufmutter, like a Soccer mom., physically and psychologically very damaging*.

Like Jill Rodrigues! Honestly, Jill always remind me of the Trapps a bit. But minus David.

In general, it was a very damaged family, not happy at all. So @‌Maggie Mae better don´t tell your mum. At least one of the children Maria had also was most certainly Wasner´s son  (the priest, who traveled with them)**.

Also Maria´s claim of her education is more than doubtful. That School Institute, the translation in german makes no sense and nobody know where it should have been located. He only speaks about it in her self-written books.

TBH, the family has a rather bad reputaion, away from the Tourist bus fronts.

The escape: I did hear the most phantastic stories, like Marie hiked high pregnant over  the alps in the middle of a snow storm an the like. NO! Not at all, you know they just purchased train tickets and took a ship from Italy. All in bright daylight and not secretive at all, like one books a cruise! Also the first trip was about a singing engagement in the US, they just decided to not return after the Anschluss.

Also, People... You cannot got from Salzburg to Switzerland over the Untersberg. You can´t go from Salzburg to Switzerland at all! Look it up on a map for yourself... you´ll see!.

The Villa: The movie set is not the real Villa. The Trapps were in possesion of their Villa all the time, in the first years, they rented it out to a catholic missionary order. The same order bought it at some point after the war from the Trapps. Afterwards, there was a school in it.

True is, however,  that a certain mister Himmer had quarters in there . And the missionary order hat to leave the house to the Party and the army, that´s also true. On the grounds there was a Transmitter Station and barracks for soldiers and that sort of things. Mr. Nym´s grandparents liked to tell (they also lived in Aigen, the district of Salzburg City where the Trapp Villa is located), apparently there were alot of people always coming and going, a busy house so to speak.

 

 

And now a brief collection of things that did NOT happen at the Trapp Villa, albeit doggedly rumours (and some of that stuff is really hilarious, you´ll see!):

.) Heinrich Himmer did NOT commit suicide in the house chapel and his ghost is NOT roaming the gardens and lurking into tourist´s windows at the Trap Villa Hotel... that´s impossible, because he died in Germany(I honestly do not want to meet the sort of people coming up with such stuff!  Really, really not!).

.)  There is NOT a tunnel from the Trapp Villa to the Obersalzberg (The statics alone would be horrible!).

) There have NOT any documents been discovered in the Trapp Villa, detailing the Führer´s secret escape to.the´.freakin´North Pole in a submarine! (... I can´t even...)

.) The Amber Room is NOT hidden in the Trapp Villa.

.) No Aliens.

.) No ghost of Princess Anastasia, Empress Sissi  ... generally most likely no ghosts, it´s not " a spot of outstanding paranormal activity".  Hwever there are a bunch of Yelp Reviews, none of them outstanding though.

 

* http://www.psychoanalyse-salzburg.com/sap_zeitung/pdf/Langer3.pdf

** http://www.zeit.de/2012/29/A-Trapps/seite-2

 

[FundieFarmer]

Whoa. Down this rabbit hole I go. I had no idea! Gahhh.

 

[Anny Nym]

Whoa. Down this rabbit hole I go. I had no idea! Gahhh.

 

 I don´t know if I shouln´t be sorry sending you down it now, lol.

[Anny Nym]

You just reminded me of a conversation we had years ago with my husband's family in Israel.  They were very proud of the new shopping mall that had opened up, they wanted to take us for (non-kosher) Chinese food, they wanted to show how modern everything was....and they couldn't understand why we'd want to take a day trip to Jerusalem.  I felt bad explaining that we had lots of shopping malls, non-kosher Chinese food and other modern stuff back home, and we wouldn't travel thousands of miles just to see more of the same.

The paradox is that to them, going to Jerusalem was something that crazy North Americans do.  Real Israelis go to the mall.

[As a Canadian, I can also say that I don't hang around lumberjacks.  I do, however, know how to canoe and do shop at Roots.]

Indeed, I see what you mean here.

Especially when one lives near to internationally know cultural sites, one can get a bit "taken one bite too much" of it after times. You agree - for example- that Castle is beautiful and you are proud that it is in your home region... but after a time you know every single stone of it to the point you could give it a nickname and call it your pet rock.

And then comes Friend From Abroad, and of course he wants to see The Castle, but you would rather like to show him that cute new bakery downtown. Apropos food, with food it is very prominent too.

 

[FundieFarmer]

I don't know if I'd necessarily consider it a cultural site, but @Anny Nym, you've just described how most Orlandoans feel about the Mouse House.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

@Anny Nym this reminds me of how difficult it is to explain to people that Juliet's Balcony in Verona is a blatant fake 

@FundieFarmer I think it's more a linguistics problem. What you call stereotypes I call prejudices. For me stereotypes aren't good or bad per se, they are fixated and oversimplified ideas of something. I think we are agreeing on everything but the fact that I think (and maybe you don't, if I understand correctly) that what you call idealized cultures (I prefer to say stereotypes of culture, but we mean the same thing) on the long run can become dangerous, as dangerous as hate-filled prejudices, but much more difficult to recognise. I think @jaelh brought up a very good example of what I mean with this. Australian Indigenous People's culture suffers from what is the stereotyping of it. They must choose between futilely reenacting past tradition without changing and developing or abandon their culture to assimilate with the rest of the population. It's cruel. If you pretend that a culture remains the same through time you are seriuosly stunting the possibility of that culture to develop to adapt to different times/environments/changing conditions and therefore condemning said culture to slowly die. An example more familiar to me (totally different from the previous, I know) is the marvellous city of Venice. Venice is dieing not only because of the "acqua alta" (the ivasion of the sea) even if that's also a factor, but for the progressive migration of citizens to the mainland, Venice is slowly becoming a ghost-city, a place of culture where fewer and fewer people live, because it's literally impossible to live a normal modern life in Venice, because the city is stuck in the past, modern life has evolved too quickly for the delicate equilibrium of the city. In this case stereotypes on what Venice is or should be prevent the finding of a viable solution.

@jaelh with culture I mean: "the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time", and in a particular place I'd add, as quoted from here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture 

[FundieFarmer]

Ahhh, @laPapessaGiovanna, I get where you're coming from now! I guess prejudices and stereotypes are really similar, but for some reason in my mind there's a tiny minuscule difference. An illustration of how I see it, poking fun at my former sorority girl self, if you will. It may be a weak illustration, but I'd rather not go in depth into any truly offensive stereotypes.

Idealization: Sororities are wonderful. If you join a sorority, you will have wonderful friends for a lifetime, and lots of growth experiences. An event where you preview only the positive aspects might be a rush party or pledge event.

Stereotype (just a belief, not actually carried out): All sorority girls are dumb blondes, and don't care about anything. Plus they have these weird collections of Lilly Pulitzer dresses and cable knit sweaters. But I guess I'd be open to interacting with them. They're just...dumb.

Prejudice (an action or response based on a belief): I hate stupid sorority girls, so I make sure not to sit by them or ever talk to them because I know I will never learn anything from them. 

 

...I am fully aware this difference may just be in my head. Feel free to knock some sense into me

[Palimpsest]

To add to the SoM discussion:  Maria wasn't the governess to all the children, but just one.  The children were half English. She *may* have been pregnant when she married Georg (or else someone made a mistake on their entrance papers to the US).  She did not introduce them to music, the already sand as a family.  Georg wasn't mean and arrogant, he was kindly, absent minded, and somewhat ineffectual.  The family was annoyed by the portrayal of Georg in the film.  Maria was not beloved by all the children.  In fact, she may have been personality disordered.  She was inconsistent, moody and had a raging temper.  A lot of the older von Trapp off-spring made hefty efforts to get away from the Maria-dominated family and the Choir but she held on to them like grim death.  She threw fits when family members tried to get married and move away.

She did become a missionary to Papua New Guinea with a stepdaughter and one of her daughters in later life.  The Trapp Family Lodge (not the original building) still exists in Vermont and cashes in on the movie in every move it makes.  Last time I looked was still managed by Georg and Maria's youngest son, Johannes, and his children.  www.trappfamily.com.

Sorry to blast a few more illusions.