I am all in favor of moving past it, BUT... I'm not sure it's *nonsense*. It would have helped things *hugely* if they'd spent 38 seconds on screen to explain this.
If Easten "knew better" than to use 'real' Nazi plunder than he should have "known better" to differentiate it TO the AUDIENCE. He showed a Swaztika which puts most people - at least most Americans - in the mind of "oh, Nazis, we know what they did there." But Easten wasn't quite going *there*.
He really should know better than to think Americans know much about history. I'm a history TEACHER and I didn't catch that Easten wasn't alluding to direct Nazi confiscation of property from Jews and "Others".
So yes, let's move on. But really, Jeff, this should have been made clearer.
no subject
If Easten "knew better" than to use 'real' Nazi plunder than he should have "known better" to differentiate it TO the AUDIENCE. He showed a Swaztika which puts most people - at least most Americans - in the mind of "oh, Nazis, we know what they did there." But Easten wasn't quite going *there*.
He really should know better than to think Americans know much about history. I'm a history TEACHER and I didn't catch that Easten wasn't alluding to direct Nazi confiscation of property from Jews and "Others".
So yes, let's move on. But really, Jeff, this should have been made clearer.