I'd like to weigh in support of the comments advanced by Mr. Crews and Mr. Kirkland.
Whatever else they are doing, reenactors are a form of association. They are not "bowling alone." This is a good thing. Reenactors focus on an experience that honors shared, civic sacrifice. In a public culture that is increasingly focused on the satisfaction of private appetites and private desires, the kind of patriotism embedded in reenactment is a good thing. The hobby cuts hard against what Tocqueville described as egoism.
Reenactors participate in an activity whose focus is creating a visceral, felt experience of the past. It can never *be* the past, but precisely because it is such a sensory activitity--it is about what the past felt like, smelled like, sounded like--it conveys a great deal more immediacy than anything I will ever write. Words on paper rarely affect a person in anything approaching the way that a reenactment, when done well, is capable. This is true even for spectators--but it is much more so for the people who participate directly in the reenactment. This is akin to the focus that museum curators place on having "real" artifacts from the past--which convey a great deal more emotional affect than does a reconstructed artifact.
Not all reenactors will go on to learn more about the past in the fashion that academic historians care. But it surely is the case that for many, participation in the hobby does lead to greater reflection. As an academic historian, I wish that there was a way to encourage more of that in the hobby, since the impulse inherent to the hobby can also lead the persons who partake of it a kind of antiquarian focus on "authenticity." But the hobby absolutely does prime its participants to be engaged with the broader issues of history. Every single one of my students who has also been a reenactor has been teachable--they *want* to connect what they do to the bigger questions. This, it seems to me, is yet another good thing.
All best,
Kevin
___________________________
Kevin R. Hardwick
Associate Professor
Department of History, MSC 8001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807
________________________________________
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Bill Crews [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interesting food for thought about the Civil War 150th
It is easy to make fun of reenactors. It's easy to make fun of academics, too. I think dismissing reenactors as a history resource is a mistake. You learn a lot about the military campaigns from actually loading and firing a smoothbore musket while standing in ranks and by wearing a wool uniform over longjohns on a July day in Virginia.
Sometimes they make contributions that historians are unable to make. Bob Bearor, a non-academic history buff and reenactor focusing on the Seven Years War -- though not a particularly gifted author -- found the location of Robert Rogers' Battle on Snowshoes by "reenacting" the approach march to harmonize the various conflicting contemporaneous accounts of the battle. Guys like Wallace Gussler, formerly master gunsmith at Williamsburg, have filled in gaps in our knowledge of the period -- AFAIK he's the only guy to ever build a long rifle from scratch using the tools of the era -- in both the manufacture and use of firearms.
I'm a retired Army officer. I get together with a group of friends/acquaintances each year to study a military campaign using the "staff ride" technique (http://www.history.army.mil/srides.html). We've found that reenactors are a great resource. A few years ago we relied upon a gentleman, who was rather long in the tooth for a soldier of the era, to help us find sections of Forbes Road used during Pontiac's Rebellion and locating the earthworks at Rohrer's Gap, PA.
No one is perfect. I've sat through lectures by historians and authors at Ticonderoga (http://www.fortticonderoga.org/learn/learning/war-college) and Bushy Run (http://www.bushyrunbattlefield.com/OCCBrochure2011.pdf) who were painfully unaware of the basic structure and internal processes of the British army of the period, information, imo, which is a prerequisite to understanding why many of the campaigns unfolded as they did. Some of these people are well known and unfortunately their books will eventually be cited by others. Their work would have benefited greatly by experiencing a bit of "living history."
We all visit battlefields and monuments for different reasons. Some contemplate, some learn, some just wander about. Everyone has different interests and so long as they aren't hurting people or unnecessarily frightening the livestock my inclination is to leave them alone.
________________________________
From: Keith Kirkland <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Interesting food for thought about the Civil War 150th
>at times like those I'm too deeply moved about what I
know really happened in those sacred places to want to interact with anyone
in a period costume -- in the same way, I suppose, that when attending the
funeral of someone I knew and loved, I embrace the liturgy, music, prayers,
and silence rather than the efforts of some clergyperson imposing his or
her interpretation on the life of someone he or she may never have know.
But that's just me. . . .
That's beautifully written and eloquently put. However, there is a slight
difference between your analogy and historical interpretation: everyone at
the funeral has had some previous experience and presumably fond memories of
the one who has passed. This isn't the case for visitors at the respective
museums and/or battlefields - many may have only passing knowledge (if that)
about the subjects at hand. Combine that scenario with today's technology
and an increasingly interactive world and you have the reasoning for the
creation of this method of historical interpretation and why curators and
directors may urge it's implementation - for better or for worse. Does the
widow who loved a man for fifty years condemn the clergy for offering a
eulogy that doesn't reach the depths of her knowledge? I think the same
could be said here of Lafantasie's article. I know of a well-read,
mild-mannered lawyer whose idea of a "fun" vacation for the past ten years
is to dress in the same wool uniform for two weeks, live off her camp kit,
battle bugs, and rain while traipsing through the woods with hundreds of her
closest comrades before ending the march in a re-enacted battle or skirmish
all under the July or August heat of Pennsylvania or Virginia. She insists
that nothing be done that wasn't available to a Confederate private in the
1860's. I would stack her knowledge of the Civil War at the tactical,
operational, and strategic level up against anyone. She knows field life of
a moving army because she's lived it - for "fun" - as a hobby. I've met many
who, though not as dedicated, were not slouches to the underlying history.
Are these the exceptions rather than the rule? Possibly. But it's certainly
not worthy of derision.
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
