A lot of folks here are questioning re-enacting of specific battles that have nothing to do with Canada.
I will point towards the Medieval folks, the 18th century people, and so on. They often do not re-enact actual battles.
They DO re-enact Tactics, Methods, Equipment use, Team actions.
We can re-enact Canadian troops, other countrie's troops, terrorists, operatives. That covers all the equipment and uniforms I can think of. We can also re-enact battles in other countries (Viet-Nam comes to mind and is already done).
We can do exactly the same and say we reproduce tactics, methods, and events such as "the people who rescued the Christian Hostages in Iraq". That is recent history, it happened, and AID WORKERS were saved.
Look at all the words I just used; we're 'studying' tactics that helped 'rescue innocent aid workers' and learning from it.
I could have said "We're doing a military simulation where we shoot unsuspecting guards to rescue personnel that were about to be decapitated. Us, the hostages and the guards about to decapitate were not harmed in the event because we use real looking machine guns."
What do you think would go down best? Is it so hard to change the words we use?
To those of you who dont know about the re-enactment world, I suggest you study a bit more on it. See what they do, how they do it, and most importantly how they appear in the media.
We can do the same thing IF we get our act together. If not, nothing will change. Me? I'll give it a shot and do my part. Re-enactment is a large definition, let's use it for our advantage. It's free.
Last edited by Greylocks; January 21st, 2007 at 10:13..