Patrick Bateman wrote:Joking Saint wrote:It's not the Nazi thing that puzzles me, but the whole reenactment of war in general. Why go to any length or expense to reenact a war from decades ago? If you're jonesing for war, there are several actual armed conflicts going on right now that you could enlist in to scratch that itch. War isn't exactly a pleasant thing that most people who lived through them relish reliving the memories of, much less recreating them.
Agreed. Being German, I have a hard time understanding your fascination with that thing.
Re-enacting is really just a subcategory of acting. You get to exert those barbaric urges, but at the same time, you get the chance to act out history. While barbaric, war is usually the only interesting thing from history that gets re-enacted.
Besides childrens plays, how often to you see a re-enactment of the signing of the Constitution, or the Gettysburg Address?
As for this being wrong, I see no difference from this than the Civil War junkies that represent the South during re-enactments. Despite the cause during the actual Civil War, they too are out there for a chance to re-enact a battle, not re-enact slavery.
Heck, we did a Civil War scenario in 5th grade, and I was chosen by the teacher to play Robert E. Lee. I didn't give a crap what the south supposedly faught for. I looked at it as a challenge (there was a class room competition between sides for a couple months) to overcome. The class was split in to thirds with two of them being the North.
Even being outnumbered two to one, we were able to win (according to the point system our teacher had in place). But it didn't matter that independance was achieved in the scenario. It was the fact that we kicked ass, and had fun doing it.
That is the point of re-enactments.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
" on AMAZON](/images/products/tmb/76ce8e24b09a30c8158cbde7d36bb274.jpg)
