Should Harry visit Auschwitz?

In light of the global media onslaught surrounding Prince Harry's Nazi costume, I would like to pose a few questions.

One, where do we draw the line between blatant and agreed upon symbols of racism (such as the Nazi uniform) and those that are not so obvious and in their ambiguity are perhaps even more degrading, dangerous and offensive. A small example of which is from this Saturday's SNL show which depicted two African-American emergency workers refusing to work on "their holiday...Martin Luther King day." The show went on to demonstrate their apparent ignorance of their own history, which their white male boss knew more of than they did. This may seem just as much "harmless humor" as what Harry might've thought his costume would be. Who's to say exactly? What distinguishes an "atrocity" from "business as usual" in war and power politics? Is "destroying a city in order to save it" somehow undeserving of the term genocide or the term terrorism? Who gets to decide which is worthy of that label and which is a struggle for freedom and democracy? Who gets to determine when "evil" is Evil and when evil is good or accidental or excusable? Where does consensus figure in to understanding racism when few can agree on what events and policies are racist? For example, Marcy's article on "symbols of racism" sparked heated argument on her viewing the confederate flag as racist. So where do we draw the lines?

Secondly, I'd like to ask if the issue is really about him being a potential future leader or at the very least a figure head making light of an obvious atrocity? If it is a matter of representation and leadership, why doesn't Bush visit Abu Ghraib or even Guantanamo Bay or even attend the trials of those accused of prisoner abuse and torture? Why isn't the media worldwide and particularly here, calling for our leader to visit the site of modern day atrocities where known violations have occurred and continue to take place? What differentiates atrocity and abnormality from that which is deemed normal, "progress" or a necessary evil?

Third and final question, why, with genocide happening still to this day, do we not look at the many examples of, what bell hooks has termed "interlocking systems of oppression" and critique global leaders and figureheads (the "royals" included) not only on media blitz examples of transgression but also on colonialism, patriarchy, racism, elitism and sexism? Is it wrong to call the policies of the WTO and IMF racist? Can one call the Bush administration's media manipulation of AIDS funding racist? Where do we draw these lines as individuals and as a collective society, when people can shake their heads over Prince Harry and his advisors prompt him to try and save face by visiting Auschwitz but the acts occurring at Abu Ghraib are considered the works of "a few bad apples," isolated and undemonstrative of extremely questionable "moral" policies and practices?

What will be demonstrated by Harry visiting Auschwitz? Bush visited Africa and spoke of great American leaders (all African-American CHRISTIAN leaders) who'd fought for civil rights. Does visiting a place automatically reverse the mindset that privilege grants? This issue is complicated. We need to ask the questions that aren't going to make the news. What qualifies as racist policy, racist practice, racist ideology when the lines seem quite blurred and interconnected?

"She said it's time to open my eyes
Don't be afraid to open my eyes
Maybe she's right. Maybe she's right.
Maybe she's right."
--"The wrong band" Tori Amos