[HN Gopher] Not a three-year-old chimney sweep (2022)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Not a three-year-old chimney sweep (2022)
        
       Author : nixass
       Score  : 95 points
       Date   : 2025-05-10 06:58 UTC (16 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (fakehistoryhunter.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (fakehistoryhunter.net)
        
       | AndrewSwift wrote:
       | Great article, thanks for sharing.
        
       | bruce511 wrote:
       | It really doesn't take much to get people outraged. The last 20
       | years or so of social media, and cultural politics has taught us
       | that.
       | 
       | And enraged people are easily manipulated. Americans were enraged
       | after 9/11, and that engagement was quickly weaponized into the
       | Patriot Act and the "War on Terror".
       | 
       | The flip side of all this enragement is a callous apathy. Things
       | that really should concern me (like the eradication of due
       | process) are hidden behind nonsense (like 1930 chimney sweeps) or
       | the exhaustion of being enraged all the time.
        
         | xucian wrote:
         | this is an incredibly overlooked angle, I think I never
         | actually thought of this. thanks a lot, this makes a lot of
         | sense
        
           | normie3000 wrote:
           | Conceptually similar to disaster capitalism, perhaps? "Never
           | let a good crisis go to waste."
        
         | yen223 wrote:
         | Were many people outraged by this photo?
         | 
         | This is the first I've heard of the photo or the outrage, so I
         | genuinely don't know
        
           | bruce511 wrote:
           | Get enough people and you'll find someone outraged about
           | everything.
           | 
           | If you want to modernize the analogy you might compare it to
           | "school children identifying as cats and needing litterboxes"
           | or any number of modern contemporary outrage over completely
           | made up things.
        
         | tap-snap-or-nap wrote:
         | How are we supposed to find balance between the two? As soon as
         | I thought of this question, I realized that I would need to
         | practice it just like real life balancing.
        
       | giorgosts wrote:
       | So it is a re-enactment but nevertheless, it is depicting real
       | world practices prevalent at the time.
        
         | dlkmp wrote:
         | Did you read the article? It was a real world practice, but
         | long gone already at that time (in the mentioned parts of
         | Europe at least).
        
           | irjustin wrote:
           | I'll play's devil's advocate - is there really a difference?
           | 
           | People were angry (rightfully so) at children chimney sweeps
           | and they definitely existed, were abused and did die/have
           | horrible problems/etc.
           | 
           | So the outrage is justified. Now, the specific picture isn't
           | true/authentic, but the contents of the picture definitely
           | existed did.
           | 
           | So is it wrong?
        
             | croes wrote:
             | But they are targeting the wrong time period with their
             | anger.
             | 
             | It's like with the witch hunts which are associated with
             | the middle ages but happened later.
        
             | Veen wrote:
             | What's the point of getting angry about something that
             | happened so long ago that the angry people's grandparents
             | weren't born yet?
        
           | giorgosts wrote:
           | Why would the filmmakers make the re-enactment though? For
           | social media? For clicks over the interwebs?
           | 
           | For context, by the late '20 programs were running for the
           | elimination of Gypsies and disabled children inside
           | concentration camps. Pieces of burned clothing were found on
           | rooftops. Even Britain had a eugenics program against
           | inferior races.
           | 
           | Not likely therefore made to cause outrage over children's
           | rights, rather to depict established practices.
        
             | biorach wrote:
             | > Why would the filmmakers make the re-enactment though?
             | 
             | because, as you'll see in the article, people thought it
             | was cute and funny to dress up very small children as
             | chimney sweeps
             | 
             | > by the late '20 programs were running for the elimination
             | of Gypsies and disabled children inside concentration camps
             | 
             | You've got your timeline mixed up
        
             | prmoustache wrote:
             | To these days, there are kids dressed at chimney sweep in a
             | lot of weddings in many german speaking countries. I know
             | one of my daughter did dress that way in a friend's wedding
             | when I was living in Switzerland.
             | 
             | People think about the tradition of them bringing good omen
             | and how cute they look, not gruesome children labor.
        
             | Cordiali wrote:
             | From the article:
             | 
             | >Another important thing to mention is that the chimney
             | sweep was a good luck symbol at that time, especially in
             | Germany. People dressed up as them and send each other
             | postcards showing children as chimney sweeps.
        
         | snickerer wrote:
         | People and societies work a lot with re-enactment. I think of,
         | for example, pirates. There was nothing fun about them,
         | watching the Jolly Roger approaching you must be horrible,
         | followed by a gruesome death. But we, adults and children both,
         | are enjoying to play pirates. Maybe the re-enactment of
         | something brutal can be a healthy way to get over it for
         | humans.
        
         | croes wrote:
         | I doubt that they used 3 years old.
         | 
         | Not strong enough to do anything useful.
        
         | verisimi wrote:
         | It's amazing how many military drills preceed actual
         | engagement.
        
       | pavel_lishin wrote:
       | > _But the pavement looked familiar to me, I'm specialised in
       | Europe during the 1920s-40s and have worked on a project about
       | daily life in Berlin in the 1920s and I've seen that pavement in
       | other old footage and in countless photos._
       | 
       | I visited Jerusalem yesterday, and was struck by the fact that
       | there are places in the world where people have been continuously
       | walking for millennia, putting their feet on the same stones. I
       | had a mental image of a historian who specializes in a single
       | paving stone, putting a lifetime of effort into studying just
       | this one large brick.
       | 
       | This part of the article felt like such a weird echo of that
       | thought!
        
         | dcminter wrote:
         | The Guildhall in London is one of the old political centres of
         | the city. If you go down into the basement there's the remains
         | of a Roman ampitheatre!
         | 
         | Tucked away in an alcove on Cannon Street is an old block of
         | stone. This is the famous London Stone. So old that nobody
         | knows _what_ it is originally famous for...
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildhall,_London
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stone
         | 
         | That sort of oddity and connection with history is one of the
         | fun parts when living in an "old" city (London isn't even that
         | old by global standards).
         | 
         | That ampitheatre shows that street level in ancient times and
         | now might be quite different, so the historical feet might not
         | really have been walking in the same place. London Stone does
         | suggest that you could reasonably invest a lot of effort into
         | the history of a single slab though!
        
           | normie3000 wrote:
           | > That ampitheatre shows that street level in ancient times
           | 
           | Why do street levels change like this? There seem to be a lot
           | of "buried streets" in old cities.
        
             | dcminter wrote:
             | 2000(ish) years of dust and leaf litter adds up!
        
             | lexicality wrote:
             | old cities are typically built on the flood planes of large
             | rivers since you get easy access to clean(ish) water and
             | flat ground. Large rivers tend to engage in sedimentation
             | so everything around them either needs to slowly and
             | constantly build upwards to avoid being underwater or will
             | be razed and the ground raised by the next flood with its
             | associated payload of mud.
        
             | ZiiS wrote:
             | Lack of JCBs.
        
             | wcoenen wrote:
             | Humans tend to accumulate building material in cities
             | faster than it is lost to erosion. It can add up to many
             | meters over the millennia.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)
        
         | stevoski wrote:
         | Barcelona has a distinctive paving style; it has become a
         | symbol of the city.
         | 
         | If you live here and see it everyday, you spot it instantly
         | when watching TV show or movie that was made here.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panot
        
       | noosphr wrote:
       | There should be a name for the phenomenon where people upset
       | about some injustice pick the least plausible example to use as
       | the cause celebre of the injustice.
       | 
       | For a more modern take I can't understand why Daniel Shaver is
       | not the face of police murder in the US. The video is on YouTube,
       | you can find the unedited version with a Google search. There is
       | no benefit of the doubt to give. It was straight up murder done
       | on live cam. The more you read the worse it gets.
       | 
       | But it got buried in a week and no one remembers it.
        
         | jMyles wrote:
         | > no one remembers it.
         | 
         | That doesn't resonate with my experience. People know about the
         | murder, but aren't sure what to do.
         | 
         | The murderer, who clearly had mental health issues (eg, having
         | "you're fucked" on the dust cover of his personal AR-15, which
         | he used to commit the act), was acquitted (in a trial of
         | strange circumstances). It's baffling that none of his
         | colleagues - who saw the message on his weapon - ever pulled
         | him aside to ask if he was OK.
         | 
         | And anyway, what does this have to do with your point of
         | holding up an unlikely / outlying example to demonstrate a
         | phenomenon?
        
           | sethammons wrote:
           | I am not remotely aware of this case. How does those words,
           | or any words, on a gun case/cover relate to mental health
           | issues? This isn't a manifesto; it is more like "guard dog?
           | Beware of owner!" decal, or a Calvin pissing on a coexist
           | sticker. Or truck nuts. These might be distasteful to some
           | but is unrelated to mental health. I'd be more worried about
           | my former neighbor who had an unhealthy love of maglite
           | flashlights and owned like 50 of 'em. _That_ was strange.
        
             | winrid wrote:
             | People like flashlights. It's a thing. Just like we like
             | computers.
        
               | sethammons wrote:
               | No shade meant towards odd collections nor truck nuts.
        
             | silotis wrote:
             | The "you're fucked" was written on the inside of the
             | ejection port dust cover so that it would become visible
             | after the weapon was fired. The implication is that he was
             | eager to shoot someone.
        
               | dullcrisp wrote:
               | I'd say the medium is the message in this case.
        
             | failrate wrote:
             | As someone who avoids making threats in public, those
             | stickers and whatnot do leave me concerned about the
             | person's mental health.
        
           | marssaxman wrote:
           | His colleagues likely didn't find the dust cover noteworthy.
           | Within contemporary American gun culture, it would seem like
           | a minor bit of braggadocio akin to a "Protected by Smith &
           | Wesson" sticker or a "Warning: We Don't Dial 911" placard;
           | tacky and unprofessional, but not something to take
           | seriously. There's a whole little industry around AR-15
           | customization, offering thousands of options for engraved
           | dust covers with all kinds of symbols and messages:
           | 
           | https://midstatefirearms.com/product/engraved-dust-cover-
           | eje...
           | 
           | https://mcsgearup.com/ar-15-ejection-port-dust-cover-
           | engravi...
           | 
           | https://www.wingtactical.com/firearm-parts/ar-15/upper-
           | recei...
           | 
           | https://cordedarms.com/ExoticCovers1
        
         | genewitch wrote:
         | Elijah McCain wasn't allegedly shooting an air rifle at a
         | motel, so I'd reckon they should be the face.
         | 
         | Right?
        
         | clipsy wrote:
         | It's unfortunate that the shooter was not convicted, but the
         | mere fact that there was an investigation and a trial
         | differentiates it from a lot of police violence causes
         | celebres.
        
           | ralfd wrote:
           | what, why?
        
         | eru wrote:
         | > There should be a name for the phenomenon where people upset
         | about some injustice pick the least plausible example to use as
         | the cause celebre of the injustice.
         | 
         | Perhaps 'The Toxoplasma of Rage'? See
         | https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
         | 
         | Or you might like
         | https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/12/clarification-to-sacre...
        
           | rssoconnor wrote:
           | Thanks for reminding me of CGP Grey's "This Video Will Make
           | You Angry": https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
           | 
           | Now I feel I should rewatch this video annually as a reminder
           | to myself, or maybe monthly.
        
       | kubb wrote:
       | So it was a common practice a century before the photo was taken.
       | 
       | How is it surprising that people get upset? The photo is a record
       | of a depiction of a practice that existed.
       | 
       | It's the practice that people don't like, not the depiction.
        
         | fyrn_ wrote:
         | Part of why people are upsetis because they think this is a
         | much more recent example of the thing they dislike than
         | expected. It's disingenuous to pretend it's only the practice
         | not the context which influences people.
        
           | kubb wrote:
           | Sure, context matters. You could claim "there were no 3 year
           | olds ACTUALLY working as chimney sweeps anywhere in the world
           | in 1930", if you wanted to make this point. But, I suspect
           | it's not so clear if that's even true, just as the author can
           | only suspect this is a reenactment in this photo.
        
             | Jolter wrote:
             | I think you'll find they the article makes some very good
             | arguments for why this is indeed a reenactment.
             | 
             | I think the best argument is that three year olds would
             | make extremely ineffective chimney sweeps. I don't know if
             | you've met any recently? They would require more effort in
             | supervision than they save by way of their labor. Much
             | more.
        
         | gambiting wrote:
         | Well but it's posted as a real thing, not a re-enactment. It's
         | dishonest at its core. Especially since it says it's as recent
         | as 1930 which is just straight up not true.
         | 
         | It's like if we reenacted it in 2025 and said "look at this
         | toddler chimney sweep in 2025!".
         | 
         | Obviously part of the outrage would be at the practice, part of
         | it would be at the fact that it's in 2025.
        
         | kubb wrote:
         | Actually, I take back what I said. The article doesn't even
         | conclusively demonstrate that this is a reenactment.
        
           | Thorrez wrote:
           | Well a law was passed 30 years earlier making it illegal.
        
         | Thorrez wrote:
         | It wasn't common practice for 3-year-olds to do it. The article
         | says usually 6 was the youngest.
        
       | nickdothutton wrote:
       | The picture is a staged and is a caricature not a depiction or
       | reenactment of anything real. Yes, there was child labour in many
       | industries and it was dangerous to them in both the long and the
       | short term. No, 3 year olds were not used to sweep chimneys (but
       | slightly older children were, 5, 6, 7). Yes, this was outlawed
       | long before the picture was taken. In the UK an act was passed in
       | 1788 restricting the minimum age to 8, although like many such
       | laws it was not well enforced.
        
         | eru wrote:
         | Yes.
         | 
         | And educating your children is what economists call a 'normal
         | good'. Ie, richer people consumer more of it.
        
       | dzdt wrote:
       | I more examples from when that kiddie chimney sweep photo/film
       | session went viral in the late 1920's. Interestingly the fakeness
       | of it was never acknowledged.
       | 
       | Here is Horst Bohnke in Spanish literary/art magazine Blanco y
       | Negro in 1928. It includes one more photo not already in the
       | original Fake History Hunter article. [1]
       | 
       | And here he is in American newspaper photo collages, in a
       | syndicated 1927 Central Press spread "The Day's News in Pictures"
       | : "Starting Early - Horst Bohnke, two and one-half years old, of
       | Berlin, Germany, has just entered the chimney sweeping
       | profession, proving that chimney sweeps are born and not made. He
       | is working as an apprentice to his father" [2].
       | 
       | And in Knickerbocker Press Artgravure Picture Section, March 6,
       | 1927 : "Infant member of an ancient trade. Horst Bohnke, two and
       | a half years old, is apprentice to his father, a Berlin, Germany,
       | chimneysweep" [3]
       | 
       | [1]
       | https://www.google.com/books/edition/Blanco_y_negro/NujrMJPr...
       | 
       | [2] https://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-
       | xml?altU...
       | 
       | [3] https://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-
       | xml?altU...
        
         | eru wrote:
         | > Interestingly the fakeness of it was never acknowledged.
         | 
         | Perhaps it was implicitly understood?
        
       | pfdietz wrote:
       | The boy would be the right age to be a soldier in WW2. So there's
       | a good chance he died then.
        
       | lttlrck wrote:
       | Ironically for me, the final photo of the boy on the roof
       | (presented as evidence of staging) looks _less_ obviously staged
       | than the newsreel. It felt at odds with the preceding text.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-05-10 23:00 UTC)