jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (40 posts)

If Star Trek fans can dress up, then why can't Nazi Fans? (Huh?)

  1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
    Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago

    Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I'm a minority myself.  I'm half Chinese, one quarter Native American and a quarter Hispanic myself, so please don't think I'm some sort of white supremacist based on the title of this thread.  I'm merely naming this thread after the name of the video i just saw on youtube, so please don't jump to any conclusions because I personally think all Nazis are a**holes that deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  That's my official stance on them.

    However, the youngturks news had an interesting story about Nazi...FANS?!?  Apparently, there are a bunch of people that are part of a German reenactment group in Minneapolis that like to eat at a German restaurant while dressing up as Nazis.  They do this only once a year at a private dinner party at some German restaurant they love to eat at obviously.  They claim it's for historical purposes similar to how you'd find people dressing up as Confederate and Union soldiers for Civil War reenactment.  Except unlike the Civil War reenactment.  the guys dressing up like Nazis are merely eating at a public German restaurant.

    Jon Boorom, one of the members of this group, says that they're just huge World War II fans, and it's all in the nature of education and fun around the holidays.  He also claims that they do screen their members carefully, and cite that no Neo Nazis, or political racists, are allowed to join their reenactment group.. 

    He's even quoted as saying the following: 

    "If you wear a German uniform or a Nazi uniform, it's not like you're saying, 'I think Hitler was super cool' or 'I hate Jews' or 'I hate gays' or 'I hate democrats,'" Boorom explains. "You're not there because you believe in what Hitler stood for -- you're there to educate people about history, and a lot of that is so people don't forget. It's the same as wanting to be the bad guy when you're playing cowboys and Indians. There's an attraction to the bad side."

    Anyways if you folks would like to know more about this story, the please click on either of these links to know more:

    http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2014/03 … chkeit.php


    Anyways what are you're thoughts on this?  Do you think what these guys are doing is justified in any way?  Or do you question their true intentions?

    I don't know about you guys, but I personally think that sounds highly suspicious.  I wouldn't trust a word that guy says, as that sounds like a bunch of bulls*** if you ask me.   But then again, I've been wrong before, so I'll bite my tongue on this one.  What are your thoughts on this?

    1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
      BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Let me preface my answer by saying this.  My father was a concentration camp survivor so the World War II situation and the ill treatment of Jews is a key part of my family history.  Am I offended by the Nazi movement?  Absolutely.  Am I offended by the uniforms?  Not so much.

      As someone who is fond of movies and stage performances, over the years, I've come to realize one thing in life.  A costume is just a costume and it doesn't define the person wearing it.  Christoph Waltz won an Academy Award a few years ago for playing a hideous Nazi in Inglourious Basterds.   Did that make him a horrible human being?  Probably not.  People shouldn't be judged for the clothes they wear, but rather the deeds they perform while wearing them.  To that end, I support the group's freedom of expression.  If they start burning books in the street though and encourage the ill treatment of individuals they see as "inferior", then I say string 'em up.

      1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
        Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, that's probably the most well thought out opinion that I've read on this thread so far, and it definitely carries a lot of weight considering what you're father went through.  I do apologize severely about what happened to your father, as I can only imagine the horrors he must've seen at one of those places. 

        You're right that just because a person dons that Nazi uniform, it doesn't mean anything per say.  And, it's the person wearing the costume that we should be concerned about.  Not the uniform itself.  Don't get me wrong, if what these guys are saying is true, then like you, I too will be willing to condone their actions.  After all, they're not hurting anyone, and it's freedom of expression and whatnot. 

        However, I tend to question their motives.  Sure, they claim to be doing this for educational and leisurely purposes.  But my biggest question is how the hell is this historical in any way?  I mean all they're doing is going out to dinner together at some private party.  What's so educational about that? 

        I mean are they talking to kids about stuff that happened in "World War II" while being dressed like that?  Are they recruiting young kids into their reenactment group and then teaching like a seminar about the history of World War II at this private dinner party? 

        And if that's the case, then why do they all have to be dressed up like Nazis?  Why not have some dress up like the allies too?  Granted, I applaud you for being very open minded about this, but I'm still suspicious as hell.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm not outright calling these men Nazis, but  I severely question their intentions.  However, I am open to the fact that not all the facts are presented in the article and video, so there might be more to this than we know.

  2. FatFreddysCat profile image93
    FatFreddysCatposted 2 years ago

    Do they perform the song "Springtime for Hitler?"

    1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
      BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And therein lies the rub.  A lot of people were mad and indignant about the underlying story in "The Producers", yet everyone knew that Mel Brooks was Jewish.  He got it even though everyone else pretends not to.  To quote the Joker from The Dark Knight, "Why so serious?"

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Just the idea of "Springtime for Hitler" makes me laugh.  Werner Lemperer, Colonel Klink from "Hogan's Heroes," whose father was Jewish, agreed to play a German officer only if the Germans were portrayed as a little goofy and that they never won.  There is ample room for parody in all that serious parading around.

  3. 0
    Beth37posted 2 years ago

    It would be a little like ppl dressing up as Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Jack the Ripper etc. It's just bad taste.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Dressing like Jack, the Ripper would be more tasteful than being Miley Cyrus and her costumes sold well this past Halloween.

  4. PHILLYDREAMER profile image83
    PHILLYDREAMERposted 2 years ago

    Actually I think it's more socially acceptable to dress like a serial killer.

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      can you elaborate on that?

    2. bat115 profile image74
      bat115posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, no kidding!

  5. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    I think there is an enormous difference between being a fan of a fictional show and celebrating horrible events in human history.  I consider a "WWII buff" to be someone who knows the history of the event and the time, but I don't, nor have I ever, understood why someone might choose to reenact events just for the pleasure of it.  Seems to me that it either extends from a misplaced air of nostalgia for the ideals of the time, or a desire to return to them.  For me, personally, no thanks.

  6. Superkev profile image85
    Superkevposted 2 years ago

    One of the great things about living in the US is that we have freedom of speech and expression. Thankfully, at least for now, we don't have a Canadian style so-called "Human Rights Commission". At least not yet.

    (Goolge Ezra Levant Human rights commission if you want to know what I am on about)

    But the great thing about the US is you can be as offensive as you care to be, and I can tell you that I find you offensive and boorish as well.

    So unless they are trying to recreate Kristallnacht, I say let them be. Mock them, certainly if you wish, but let them alone.

    In a free society you have to tolerate popular as well as unpopular ideas and speech. That's just the price you pay for freedom.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Freedom of speech is of course important as is ones freedom to have those accountable for the things that others say.

      While I'm not a fan of Sun news I have been a fan at times of Ezra Levant. If you are unaware Sun news is the equivalent of Fox news in the US.

      Lets have a look at what Ezra Levant said and what happened as a result of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council rulings.

      "CBSC) determined that while hosting The Source in 2011, Levant violated the CBSC's Code of Ethics by using a Spanish vulgarity on air (Sun News CBSC Rulings).[20] The violation of the Code occurred on December 22, 2011, when Levant, in a commentary on The Source, blasted Chiquita Brands International and its ethical record after the company stated it would discontinue using oil produced from the Alberta oil sands. Speaking in Spanish, Levant told an Hispanic Chiquita executive to go have sexual relations with his mother. The CBSC received 22 complaints about Levant's use of the slur, a few noting that it is one of the nastiest insults in the Spanish language. Though Sun News and Levant went on to argue that the phrase can have several meanings, Levant later admitted he intended to use the term in its literal, most vulgar sense.[20] With that, the CBSC determined in June 2012 that, though Levant had his right to criticize Chiquita and its management, his use of the Spanish vulgarity violated Clause 6 of the Code of Ethics, which requires "full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial" content; as a result, Sun News was required to issue an on-air announcement of the CBSC decision."

      "On September 5, 2012, Levant broadcast a commentary that he titled "The Jew vs. the Gypsies" on The Source, in which he accused the Romani people as a group of being criminals. Levant said, "These are gypsies, a culture synonymous with swindlers…. In March 2013, Levant apologized for his remarks, stating that "I attacked a particular group, and painted them all with the same brush. And to those I hurt, I'm sorry" and expressed hope that this "will serve as an example of what not to do when commenting on social issues."

      As for the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
      "Levant is a fierce critic of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, particularly concerning Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who in the Lund v. Boissoin matter was fined $7,000 and banned from publicly "disparaging ... gays and lesbians" in May 2008. This case concerned a letter published by the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which Boissoin attacked the "homosexual agenda" as "wicked". In June 2008, Levant republished Boissoin's letter on his blog. When the AHRC dismissed the resulting complaint in November 2008, Levant accused the HRCs of religious discrimination, asserting that "100% of the CHRC's targets have been white, Christian or conservative" and that "It's legal for a Jew like me to publish [Boissoin’s letter]. It's illegal for a Christian like Rev. Boissoin to publish it." The HRC's ruling was overturned by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in 2009, on the grounds that Levant had the right to free speech."

      In the end it worked itself out.

      Ezra has been a frequent critic of Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, who is Muslim, calling him an "anti-Christian bigot".

      Various people have been suing him for libel however.
      "The Law Society of Alberta had found that Levant violated the following rules of professional conduct: to "respect and uphold the law in personal conduct", to "seek to improve the justice system", to not "act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law", to be "courteous and candid", and to not "harass any person or discriminate against any person" on various prohibited grounds and ordered Levant to attend a "mandatory conduct advisory" after which the matter was dropped."

      So I ask has his freedom to speak been taken away?

      1. Superkev profile image85
        Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You left out the most egregious CHRC actions, when they dragged him through a 2 year process costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars for simply republishing the infamous "Mohammed cartoons" along with a story about the controversy in the magazine he used to publish. This was based on the complaint of ONE man, a Muslim looking for a payday. 

        The bigger point, and I am simply going to assume you are from Canada, is why is there a wholly unaccountable, non-judicial board that does not have to adhere to any of the basic rules of trial and evidence, that can fine a person thousands of dollars  for simply offending another? That's is your big question.

        Why would you allow such an illiberal kangaroo type court to even exist in your country and waste the taxpayers money pursuing, and ruining peoples lives, to simply smooth the feathers of someone who claims to have been 'offended'?

        Don't you think that such actions who serve to greatly stifle the free speech of others who are afraid of losing everything to some grievance-monger looking to get rich from the Canadian taxpayers? This would, and I am sure has had, a chilling affect on free speech in Canada.

        And to answer your final question: Yes, if not by law and statute then certainly by threat and intimidation.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Funny wikipedia didn't mention it. What are your sources? Wait I found it, is this what you are talking about?
          "Syed Soharwardy, the founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada who filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Ezra Levant for republication of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, later dropped the complaint and changed his mind about the value of using Canada's human rights commissions to prosecute 'hate speech'.
          I can tell you that he has been sued and is being sued for slander calling someone a " liar", "stupid, a “fool", “serial, malicious, money-grubbing liar,”, “unequivocally implied that he was an anti-Semite and perjurer.” Awan states that Levant also stated that Awan believes it is permissible to lie to further the cause of Islam.

          Clearly you have no idea what the CHRC is or what it is supposed to do. "It is empowered under the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction. The CHRC is also empowered under the Employment Equity Act to ensure that federally regulated employers provide equal opportunities for four designated groups: women, Aboriginal people, the disabled and visible minorities. The CHRC helps enforce these human rights and inform the general public and employers of these rights."

          Section 13 of the CHRA has been the centre of controversy because it had stated prior to it's repeal that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.". In other words for a period of time unfortunately a window was left open and some took advantage.

          Free speech, here is the thing about free speech. You are free to speak or say anything however if the intent is to hurt someone or some group who say can't afford to respond with high priced lawyers, then perhaps you can be seen as a bully and shouldn't there be laws to protect these people?

          1. Superkev profile image85
            Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What the CHRC is *supposed* to do and what they have done are apparently two very different things in many cases.

            Marise Myrand vs. Ste. Marie Condo Association: A severely overweight woman sues her entire condo co-op when she could not choose her parking space closest to the elevator door. The person who had the parking space was a 60 year old woman with limited mobility, and she was unwilling to give it up. The tribunal ruled the condo association give Ms. Myrand the parking spot as well as $10,000 in damages.

            -This has to do with employment how???

            • Datt vs. McDonald’s Restaurants: One employee felt McDonald’s hand washing policy irritated her skin. Result, McDonald’s was forced to pay more than $50,000 and scrap their hand washing policy.

            -Yeah better to have dirty hands making your food than a "Human Rights Violation", right? 50,000 bucks? Really? Bet she don't work at McDonald's no more. But Canadians still have to eat food made by unwashed hands.

            Ezra Levant: Mr. Levant was brought before the Human Rights Commission to answer for an editorial cartoon published in a magazine. Although the complaint was eventually withdrawn, Mr. Levant owed thousands of dollars in legal bills while his recent accuser did not have to pay a cent.

            -Thought police pure and simple. The interrogator even asked him what was his "intent". Ummm, maybe to publish a news story on a current event?? The Muslim who complained actually went to the police first and wanted him arrested. Luckily a real agency under the real rule of law told him to go pound sand.

            Even if a case is dropped eventually it will cost the 'accused' thousands of dollars to defend themselves. So there is a punishment even if eventually the case is overturned by a real court of law. What I still fail to understand is how you can allow these extrajudicial tribunals to exist in the first place.

            They have far overstepped their original mandate.

            But, oh well, you have to live with this Orwellian monster, not me. We have the 1st amendment and would fight anything like the HRC trying this crap here.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What are your sources? There have been problems, I agree, but the idea was to have a way for protect citizens from all sources of discrimination including the government itself. It no longer has the same capacity.

              It's interesting that whenever I comment on anything American I'm told to mind my own business.

              I think you've been mislead on some issues.

              1. Superkev profile image85
                Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Google is your friend. All this information is readily available.

                Ezra Levant posted video of his entire interrogation by the Alberta HRC online and it is still available for you to view.

                The HRC, like Obamacare, is a liberal attempt to force their idea of a Utopian society to simply manifest itself out of thin air. 

                You see, they think they are your rulers, your betters, and you should simply be thankful for whatever scraps they deign to throw your way. But don't you step out of line, don't you dare think, speak or act in a manner contrary to what they determine is acceptable.

                Thus, things like the HRC and Obamacare are born, because you are simply too stupid to know what's best for you or to make your own choices.

                And by God, no one, ever, anyplace, should ever be 'offended'. Unless you don't agree with their liberal views that is. Then they don't care how offended you are.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, the HRC is nothing like Obamacare and please use reputable sources. Canada already has universal healthcare with access for all and guess what? Costs 1/4 per person less than what you pay. No deductible involved. Because of our government regulations our prescription are a fraction of what you pay and our seniors pay virtually nothing.

                  As I said the HRC (Human Rights Commission) has been changed and is being changed. I'm not defending it, I'm telling you what it is because you have been misinformed.

                  1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
                    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So that's why citizens of your country come to the United States for treatment for severe illnesses when they can't get treatment in Canada due to rationed healthcare, right?

  7. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago

    There are reenactments groups for all the wars that took place. If they are WW2 fans, that's their constitutional right to dress up like that. It is tacky, you'd think that they'd take off their tunics, along with any items that have Nazi emblems on it before entering a public place. They can argue that they are not racists and even to go far as saying that the National Socialists Workers party is just a political party and not all members were war criminals. People like Oskar Schindler, the officers behind the plot to kill Hitler, the engineers that got our space program off the ground, etc. But it doesn't matter, that party, as a whole, is seen as murderers of millions of innocent deaths, plan and simple. It would be like a reenactment group dressed up as 19th century US Army Calvary soldiers going into a restaurant located next to an American Indian reservation.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Or someone wearing  Che Guevara shirt walking in to a bodega in Miami perhaps? No one seems to blink an eye at all the Che and Mao shirts worn all over, yet they were both mass murderers.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Or a GW Bush shirt!

        1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
          BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Personally, I enjoy offending people with clothing designed to provoke a reaction.  Like my shirt that reads "I was anti-Obama before it was cool".  Of course what really chases nay-sayers away is the hat I wear along with it that reads "U.S. Border Patrol".

  8. 60
    retief2000posted 2 years ago

    So we are paying for the cost of R&D, well I never thought I would resent Canadians, but I do now.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, no. You are just getting gouged. Little know secret… Canadian banks were not affected by the greed of the American banks in the credit crunch. Wonder why?

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It is unwise to venture into the mortgage loan debacle, much of the problem was caused by government interference in a mortgage system that had worked for decades.  Gouged on drugs?  Where do you think much of the research and patents for new drug treatments come from?  What regulatory system do you think those drug companies have to abide under? 

        It is the interference of the Federal Government of the United States that creates most of the trouble here.  Why do you think you can buy so many over the counter medicines in Canada that are unavailable here?  The list of distortions to the market place imposed by the American government are limitless and multitudinous.  Be grateful that you live in a country where there are far fewer people, far smaller cities, that you share on border with an developed and mostly free country and that your government hasn't gone flipping power hungry.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It's unchecked corporate greed that causes problems.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            All corporations have competitors, governments never have competition.  It is a small and easy answer to spout the "corporate greed" mantra.  There were several small lenders in the US destroyed by the mortgage crisis, why?  Because the mortgage crisis flowed from the secondary mortgage market Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, in addition to stupid regulations ostensibly intended to end mythical racial "redlining."  The end result was very bad lending practices encouraged by the government.  I was a mortgage loan officer for a small family run mortgage broker - we saw it coming.

            Price gouging and rampant greed are mythical, since both can easily be over come by one competitor.  It is government enforced regulations that discourage, distort and even destroy competition that causes the problem.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It was because of government regulation that Canadian banks were untouched by the credit crunch.

              Corporate greed is not held in check by competition. How much did walmart make last year and what does it pay it's employees? BTW, the Canadian minimum wage is about $3/hr more than in the states and Walmart is doing just fine here as well.