Jennifer, this is the best part:
Records show Kennedy did not pull the lever for any of her fellow Democrats in city primary races for mayor in 1989, 1993 and 1997 and 2005, which Republicans went on to win three out of four times in the general election.
She was also AWOL for the primary and general elections in 1994, when Sen. Daniel Moynihan was running for reelection to the seat Kennedy hopes to hold.
[...]
Records show she also took a pass on the 2002 gubernatorial primary as well as the general election, when Democrat Carl McCall took on incumbent Republican George Pataki.
Caroline Kenndy claims that 9/11 inspired her to get involved in government, yet she just couldn’t manage to make it to the polls in 2002 and 2005. Which leads me to believe she comes closer to the truth in citing her other big inspiration: Barack Obama. Although, I don’t know that he provided inspiration, so much as opportunity. During an interview with the Associated Press, in Manhattan’s Gee Whiz diner, she said,
I am an unconventional choice. I understand that. I haven’t pursued the traditional path. But I think that in our public life today, we’re starting to see there are many ways into public life and public service.
There sure are. You can write a couple of books and run against the exiting president; you can do a stint as the president’s spouse and purchase a home in a state of your choice; you can change a city’s laws to give yourself one more term to change the city’s laws; and you can try to outbid the next guy for an upcoming senate seat. So, you can probably say, my name is Kennedy and I’m in the mood.
The Obama age has already ushered in fundamental changes to the Republic and the President-elect hasn’t even been sworn in. Industries no longer have to compete, politicians no longer have to run, and voters no longer have to care. Historic firsts, as they say. Gee whiz.
While some of it may be the lack of historical perspective, or those who just like to be bad guys (maybe the same guys who dress up like star wars storm troopers in star wars costuming societies), there are sadly many in this country who revere Hitler and his killing machine.
For people with much knowledge of military history – and re-enactors are often tremendous history buffs, consulted for their expertise by authentic scholars – there’s the sad or in any case difficult to deny fact that the German army was overall the best-led, best-trained, best-motivated, most tactically capable, most effective force – usually by a significant margin. Contrary to much propaganda, German soldiers and small units tended to be much more aggressive and resourceful when detached from higher command. The Wehrmacht frequently was the best-armed as well: It usually had the neatest guns, neatest anti-tank weapon, neatest tanks, even the sharpest uniforms, etc., just not as much of it all as the war neared its virtually inevitable conclusion.
Even setting aside exotic and “bad boy” appeal, it’s not at all surprising that political or moral judgments might not be the dominant factor that re-enactors – especially ones whose surnames suggest German heritage – might take into account when “choosing sides.”
Stop the press! Obama administration pulls out of Durban2! Follow this link:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/02/27/us-pulls-out-of-durban-because-of-anti-semitism-europe-expected-to-follow/
I think that this post was a little over the top. If you’ve ever read “Confedrates in the Attic” you might get a better feel for these people. They are usually a lot more knowledgeable about the actual horrors of these times than those who do not participate or snidely deride those who choose to reenact the wrong side.
You must have really gone ballistic at the Producers, what with Springtime for Hitler and all.
“The series probably would never have been produced even a decade later, when jokes about Nazis tended to no longer be seen as funny and no one cared about the war.”
That is an interesting point. What do you suppose happened between 1965 and 1975 to cause such a change?
………
“It is true that Confederate re-enactors tend to have a rather distorted view of the history of the Civil War.”
Well, if they really believe the war was “only” about states’ rights, and that Lincoln was “the” bad guy of the story, then I suppose that would grate on the nerves after a while. I can honestly say, I have never met anyone who said those things. On the other hand, I have met countless people who believe that the war was “only” about slavery, and that Jefferson Davis was “the” bad guy. But what can you do? Ignorance is all around us.
As a female WWII reenactor I can’t totally speak to the male ‘playing war’ mindset. I am very interested in WWII history and a big collector of things from the era. I like that it is fairly accessible – veterans come to events and share their stories. Some even reenact with us – I met a ‘General’ in reenacting who was a private in WWII.
Most of the time I go to events doing an impression of a USO member. However, occasionally I have helped out as a German Red Cross nurse.
With the groups I am involved with there are VERY strict rules regarding those who are reenacting as Germans. The Germans ALWAYS lose every battle (as opposed to Civil War reenactors who often ‘take turns’). Nobody is permitted to join a German unit until they have been in a GI unit for at least a year (to try and weed out those who are just interested in reliving the reich). No swastika flags or Nazi salutes are permitted – that will result in immediate expulsion from the event and the group. You would be hard pressed to find people who are more ‘anti-nazi’ than those who are involved in reenacting… because often they know more about the crimes of the Nazis more than the average person.
I think there is also a bit of the boy ‘cool stuff’ thing. Germans tend to have interesting and rare gear… and collectors like the challenge of gathering a full set for a good impression
In the end it’s about representing history… and both sides were there. You might be interested in going to a reenactors event in your area sometime to see in person (beyond a few photos in teh NYT) how the issues are handled. You might be surprised.
Dude, if I ever read anything you write from now on that even smacks of a criticism of political correctness, my head is going to explode.
Don’t even think about it, ever again. Because when and if you do, you will be reminded over and over again of this post you’ve just written.
And if you ever read my comment, I just know that the ear-splitting, roaring sound of wind whooshing over your head is the auditory indicator of you not getting it.
Ditto what C.K. MacLeod and liberty wrote above.
One other thing to add: from a historian’s perspective (amateur or professional), the most interesting angle is usually the counter-factual, i.e. the “what if?”
The history of what happened is engaging, and necessary for the lay-person to understand and appreciate, but once you’ve read up on the factual account, the logical next step for anyone interested in history is, “What if things turned out differently?”
I consider myself the most patriotic, red-blooded, tolerant American Yankee around. I totally accept– and will strongly argue– that slavery was the cause of the Civil War (no slavery, no state’s rights argument).
That said, from a historical perspective, the South, and the Confederate military forces, is *on average* far more interesting to study than the North and the Union. The question, “How could the South have won the war?” is far more engaging (and frankly, more challenging) an historical question than “How could the North have lost it?”. Entertaining those counterfactuals is thus far more liable to elicit amateur and professional enthusiasm than more (seemingly) mundane historical questions.
There is, also, the purity of the questions– a purity afforded by the study of military history. Yes, one can intellectually and ethically recognize the countless factors of moral and philosophical importance that motivated both the German and U.S. armies to clash at the Battle of the Bulge– in fact, it would be amoral NOT to recognize those factors.
But at the end of the day, many of the most interesting questions about the Battle of the Bulge, or the Battle of Gettysburg, or even about many wars at all do NOT center on the moral, political and philosophical motivations for those wars. They’re more discrete questions– tactics, strategy, maneuvers, individual skill and bravery.
Turning a blind eye to the objectively “good” aspects of the performance of your enemy isolates you from valuable historical lessons– lessons that help your side in future conflicts. Understanding and appreciating Confederate military prowess, Wermacht skill, Soviet effectiveness, and yes, even Al Qaeda’s resilience is necessary in order to learn from our mistakes– or better yet, the mistakes of others (bloodless lessons for our side).
I would be a German re-enactor in a second, if I possessed any inclination for reenactment. Ditto a Confederate re-enactor, or any other side I would have *in real life* violently opposed, if in exchange I provided greater historical knowlege and awareness for those observing my activity.
It is good that Mr Tobin is bothered by this, because in some respects, *that’s the point*– these activities make us reflect on very important questions. But without these activities, I wonder how much we would reflect at all?
I’m an WWI and WWII fanatic. I spend countless hours every week watching documentaries on the military channel & History channel, reading books and articles and playing the best WWII game ever – Axis and Allies.
I think that this criticism of those people that choose to portray german soldiers is not fair. For one thing, someone has to portray the enemy. In many cases, WWII nutjobs (like me) switch from the allied cause to the axis cause just to be a team player. I suspect that this happens quite often on these battlefield re-enactments.
The positive aspect about these re-enactments is the educational benefit provided to modern audiences. It’s easy to stereotype all of “hitler’s soldiers” as nazis, when we know that this isn’t the case. These battlefield re-enactments provide a good forum to educate and breakdown this stereotype – much like the new Tom Cruise movie can expose audiences to dissent within the Reich. Sure, the Wehrmacht sold its soul in 1933-1934 and politically aligned with Hitler to rebuild their military and avenge the Treaty of Versailles – but these men were not nazis. In fact, most of them were so ignorant of politics that it’s frightening to read some of their memoirs.
Anyway, I think that all here are quite obviously anti-nazi – yet can recognize the german military as a separate institution. I certainly do. Perhaps Tobin’s point with this thread is that anti-semitism is alive and vibrant in the USA, as reflected by these re-enactments. Racism and anti-semitism will never disappear. People suck. But no need to dis on good people that are simply history buffs. Poster #6 already referenced some of the checks that are used within their community.
The word “antics” gives this post away. Okay, re enactments are not everyone’s cup of schnapps. For the record, I had a very ambitious, very bright Jewish acquaintance in middle school who suggested that our little overachieving all-Jewish male clique greet each other with full-fledged Hitler salutes. I convinced him to compromise on the more casual version (later referenced by Seinfeld) which at the time I attributed to Stalin. (Was I in historical denial or did Uncle Joe have salute envy?) In any case, our Irish-American teacher, who happened to be married to a Jew, soon put paid to that. My acquaintance later set all sorts of academic records at one of NYC’s most high-pressure prep schools before hanging himself the day after his acceptance to Harvard. I don’t find Nazi fantasies the slightest bit “strange,” even on the part of Jews, no matter how disturbing they may be to the polyannish. In fact I find it much harder to understand honest choir boys like Sean Hannity. No aspersions intended here on reenactors or Hollywood actors, who may we’ll be “strange” for entirely severable reasons..
I meant altar boy(s). Hannity couldn’t sing to save his life.
This is the most tone deaf post I have ever read on the otherwise excellent Contentions blog. Get a life, Mr. Tobin.
Others have defended the re-enactments, so I won’t. But it does occur to me that the New York Times is pretty good if it can get Mr. Tobin in a twist. If its in the Times, there is more to the story.
You will never understand the Southern view becvause you think it is ok to force people into a union with you by gun and bayonet. You think it is ok to destroy, burn, steal, rape, murder and make total war on your neighbors and fellow countrymen who founded The compact of These United States. You prefer the Empire The United states all for money and power. Your NE systemic hatred of any slave states peoples is inbred by the marxist socialist brainwashing that you will pass on to your children. We all know black and white in the South that you didn’t want black people in your state. Your armies of IN, IL, OH, WI made a deal in 1850 to keep the blacks bottled up in the South. Lincoln promised them he would bottle them up in the South or send them out of the country.
Read the famous Gettysburg address for real – the Confederates were the ones fighting for their freedom.
Americans refuse to confront their true history.
Oh, dear God.
Oh fiddledeedee, Josephine. The Yankees may have had their share of hypocrites and racists who feared free black labor,but the South was awfully foolish to fire on Ft.Sumter and make it a war of secession. Especially since many New Englanders themselves had economic interests (and a distrust of centralized economic power) in common with you. And remember that your own fire eaters dreamed of a Caribbean slave empire. And surely I don’t need to remind you that the forcible and entirely unprovoked enslavement of black Africans did not cast Dixie’s claims to be defending freedom in a particularly honorable light. Anyway you had Jim Crow for another hundred years so frankly I don’t know what you’re fussing about child.
Actors do it all the time, many prefer to play a well written villain over a bland hero. There is also respect for the German soldier, who was very good, regardless of how evil the National Socialists were. Has the author spent enough time with Confederate re enactors to represent their thinking accurately? I doubt it.
Plus y’all voted Democrat forEVAH.
I don’t see why Commentary would object to people playing the Nazis in WWII re-enactments. After all, that’s what Israel’s military is doing in Gaza. It’s a Warsaw ghetto re-enactment, and the Bund couldn’t be happier about it. And then there is the torture by their favorite security service, the Shin Bet, imported to the U.S. military the the behest of AIPAC’s tool, George W. Bush. Those methods were lifted from the Nazis and the Communists, two of Commentary‘s dearest groups.