UPDATE: Criticism of candidate Iott has continued, most recently with Glenn Beck being designated as Keith Olbermann's 'worst person' for supporting Richard Iott's choice of hobby.
There has been far too fast and loose Nazi name calling; in this campaign, and regarding previous politicl figures. Sadly, far too few of the name callers seem to be conversant with WW II history; they don't actually know very much other than Hitler equates to generic 'bad', and is vaguely despotic.
I give credit to Iott for taking a hard look at who the Nazis really were, actual individual people, not simply relying on vague and largely erroneous notions about Nazis and Hitler that appears to be the case with those most recently carrying Tea Party signs portraying Obama as Hitler. It was equally wrong to portray other American political figures as Hitler.
Why believe that the choices of individuals who were grouped under the heading of being Nazis is more nuanced, more complex, more appropriately a subject for closer scrutiny and study?
The best example I can offer is the current Pope. John Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth movement when he was 14. He was technically a Nazi; when he was older, he was in the anti-aircraft Luftwaffenhelfer corps. He was a real Nazi, not a pretend Nazi. I doubt that anyone reasonably believes that he embraced the Nazi cause, at any time. Particularly in view of his cousin with Down's Syndrome having been taken by the Nazis, and killed, as part of the Nazi eugenics program.
Many of those who did at one time embrace and support Hitler changed their allegiance. I would remind readers that there was a conspiracy of Hitler's generals to assassinate him, at great personal risk. They were Nazis too. To fail to understand and acknowledge the strengths of the opposition, the instances of courage, or even gallantry, simply because those others are the opposition is stupid, small minded, and ignorant of the reality of history. Likewise, anyone who refuses to acknowledge what we did on the allies side that was less than wonderful is failing to understand history. I applaud Iott's interest in complexities, and the realities of WW II history, instead of stupid oversimplification.
For people to continue to try to extrapolate an interest, a curiosity, about this era of world history is wrong. Just plain wrong, the worst kind of well-meaning ignorant wrong that has, unfortunately, so characterized the entire 2010 election cycle.
___________________________
Candidate for Congress in Ohio Richard Iott is being badly treated by the left for having participated in the very legitimate history reenactment hobby. To play the role of one of the participants in this era of history does not automatically equate to supporting what those participants did. There is not necessarily any identification with their politics, there is not necessarily any support or approval of their actions by the participating reenacters, aka re-creators.
Possibly the very worst example of the ignorant statements that have been made - so far (they could get worse) - has been Chris Matthews on his MSNBC cable show Hardball. Matthews asked if dressing up in WWII Nazi Germany clothing was some kind of homoerotic behavior,wondering if it involved 'dancing around'. Ed Shultz,on the same network, claimed this was a 'big deal' to some Americans.
It shouldn't be.
And it is not just the left going after Iott; Representative Eric Cantor repudiated Iott as well.
On the other hand, Jon Stewart, on the Tuesday 10/12/'10 episode of the Daily Show nailed it for what this is, Nerd, not Nazi -- and I give Stewart credit for the idea for the title of this post.
Well, if it is ' a big deal', it shouldn't be. I'm a history buff, and that has included knowing a range of reenacters, spanning from the dark ages circa 600 to World War II. I am aware of reenacters who participate in recreating the experience of eras even earlier. There have been experiments in the UK with people attempting to recreate iron age life. Some groups focus on a specific era in a specific location - such as viking settlements, or celtic settlements. Others focus on a single era, but leave participation open to all geographical areas.
The purpose of historic reenactment is to learn more about a period or aspect of history by trying to recreate it. That usually means wearing the clothing, but also it means researching the customs, culture, sometimes the technology, to better understand the period and the events. It does NOT mean condoning the negative aspects of those events, only attempting to more vividly experience and understand them. These events are often held to advance public awareness and education.
Many of these participants engage in both sides of recreating a conflict; for example a civil war reenacter might try to recreate the experiences of a southern confederate soldier on one weekend, and a northern union soldier the next, depending on the specific activity, and who else is available to participate. Iott is one of these reenacters, a healthy recreational activity he shared with his son. There is nothing sinister about it; it is educational, not erotic, or evil, in purpose. Someone recreating a person in an historic reenactment is no more guilty of anything than an actor playing a villain in a movie is really a bad guy.
People who engage in reenactment often do so for a variety of periods - I understand that Iott has participated in reenactment for example, with his son, in events focusing on other periods, including WW I, and both sides of the Civil War.
Don't believe this kind of thing is widespread? Jousting - yes, medieval jousting, on horseback, was designated the official state sport of the state of Maryland, back in 1962. The Maryland State Jousting /Championship was held earlier this month, on October 3, 2010. It is listed on the official website for the state government of Maryland. THAT is how sinister this is NOT.
Ever watch any of the series about people trying to live in different eras on PBS - like "Colonial House", or "Frontier House" or "the 1900 House"? A version of historic reenactment, trying out how people lived in a different time. Same educational idea, don't ONLY read it, try living it, in order to learn about it. Maybe for a few hours, maybe living it for a weekend, or longer.
Check it out - Wikipedia has an entry on it, here. Amazon.com carries at least a dozen or so books on the subject. Your local library probably has at least one or more books on the subject, and a long list of active groups in your own neighborhood who do this same kind of thing.
I've written on this blog before about 'Moral Panic' where one bunch of people whip up hysteria over little or nothing, disproportionate to any fact-based reaction. This is another example. Some people are well meaning, but just stupid or ignorant; others are quite calculating in doing so. Don't be either kind. Don't be too quick to jump to a false conclusion about an activity, or a person. Before you condemn Iott, read about historic reenactment.
Better yet, don't just read about it, go watch an event, or even try it.
It's fun.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Brick Savage, er, Terry! Glad you enjoyed the post and always happy to see you here.
ReplyDeleteI think Iott's choice of a hobby is irrelevent. Perhaps, like many folks I know, he has a fasciantion with the efficiency and skill of the Wermacht, perhaps he's simply trying to help understand history, perhaps it's for both reasons and others besides. I don't care, it's his hobby, it's no more or less meaningful than if he was a sailor, or a writer, or a painter.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, however, if he were a painter, and he painted images of Christ defecating on the cross, whether the right (or the left) would think his "hobby" was simply a hobby.
Both sides equally take the opportunity to make far more out of nothing, to insinuate something from NOTHING. Neither is more or less guilty on that score. There was a time I felt the Democratic Party behaved better, but I grew up or at least have seen too much from the Democrats to believe that any longer. There are very bright people I know who are liberals who would and do condemn such acts, but the party seems to pay no mind.
Contrastingly, few of my conservative friends condemn their party when they dress up Obama in drag (via photoshop) and circulate his picture. Few if any object when county chairpersons create images of Obama as a pair of white eyes on a black field, or of the White House lawn planted with watermelons, and worst, few if any object to images equating Obama to Hitler or to Stalin.
While I agree with your post, I have to wonder where our conservative commenters are condemning not only the left, but the right?
Instead what I see is people claiming to have never met a racist who is a conservative, and I'm left feeling that while your post has merit, it plays to the right-leaning crowd who LOVE to point out the flaws of the left, but cannot see the log in their eye.
While I applaud keeping both sides honest, a bit of even-handedness in this article would go a long way to making the point that BOTH sides behave very poorly. If the right wants to object to Iott's treatment, then it is high time they condemn referring to Obama as a Nazi, a fascist, a Stalinist or a Socialist. All of these a base, ugly, repugnant lies.