Reenacting's place in Academia

[Rear Guard]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

As one who has spent his career in advertising design, I would like to add that reenacting and reenactors are the "promoters" of the study and knowledge of the Civil War. We are visible and active to the public and increase awareness of the topic. We are walking "advertisements". Fundraising for endangered CW sites, interest in CW classes an seminars at universities, demand for books on the CW..... all benefit by our activities at large.

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

"Sherman's Horsemen" by David Evans is a good example of how reenacting can have a significant impact on an academic scholar's understanding of the war. Evans spent several months with a cav unit while researching the book, and it shows. Lots of details, such as sights, sounds, and smells, that would have escaped most historians are included in his descriptions cavalry life during the Atlanta campaign.

D

[ajroscoe]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

I am an undergrad at the University of Michigan, where I study American History. Eventually, I hope to become an historian full-time. I feel that reenacting is a crucial part of understanding history. I've read books, diaries, and letters, seen pictures, paintings, etchings and maps, and walked battlefields. All that is important for understanding the war, especially the bigger picture, how the war unfolded, how campaigns progressed, and how battles were fought. But part of the war that must be understood is how life was for the common soldier. Understand them helps to understand the men who led them. Having carried a pack on a hot day on a dusty road, I can understand all the more fully why the men of the First Division, First Corps loved James Wadsworth for pulling officer's bags off the division ambulances so men could put their packs in them during the Gettysburg Campaign. I think the real place of reenacting in academia is helping to create a sharper image of the war for those who try to explain the war. Personally, when I sit down to write something on the war, I am glad I can relate to the men who fought in it, for I know it will make me a better historian.

[Micah Trent]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

We've talked here before about creating some sort of portal for school children to utilize our resources.

Calloway and I discussed in a PM a while back about possibly setting up some sort of folder in the future for school children. There is a teacher here in Hardin County in Kentucky who uses this very site as a tool for his students when they get to their chapters on the Civil War. He has properly taught his students how to use the SEARCH function (which there are people on here who still have the slightest clue how to use that!) to find specific topics which they will be discussing in class.
The teacher isn't just looking to this site for answers, but he is looking to us, as living historians, for further knowledge and information which the school books do not teach. My hat goes off to him!

Do reenactor's have a place in academia? I think we're already there!

[Masich]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

I think if you had asked this question (pre-internet, by the way) 30 years ago you would have gotten a very different response from academics--who generally dismissed re-enactors as grown men "playing war" and "dress up." Then as now, there are a wide range of motives for participating in living history, and what we get out of it and how much interest or applicability it has to academia depends on who is doing it. Today, many archaeologists, museum-based educators, and even university professors recognize the value of historical field work and re-creations.
As a young archaeologist I remember watching graduate students and their instructors knapping flint nodules to shape prehistoric flint tools. They counted the number of flint flakes that resulted from the manufacture of each tool and and recorded the size and shape of the flakes. This empirical study enabled them to identify prehistoric tool-making sites. Even when the stone tools themselves were not present, the archaeologist could tell you how many and what kind of tool (knife, chopper, spear, etc) had been made at the site and even how long it had taken to produce it.
When I did field work at 19th century military archaeological sites, the principal investigator was amazed that I could identify brass shoulder scale fragments, soldier-marked pewter canteen spouts, musket balls made into checkers, and other odd fragments of military history. Of course I could identify this stuff and even provide insights into its manufacture and use (so could any of you) because I was a reenactor. The same intimate knowledge of 19th century manufacturing, materials, customs, and regulations enabled me to "read artifacts" in a museum setting. I knew more about fabrics, dyes, and styles than most other curators (male or female), and when it came to understanding and interpreting "wear" and "use" marks on utensils, furniture, equipment, and arms I was the Sherlock Holmes of the museum. When I began writing books (though somewhat dry and scholarly, I admit), my living history experiences provided me with insights and first hand knowledge that enabled me (in concert with other historians and tribal elders) to understand Cheyenne ledger drawings rendered by warrior artists in 1865.
I truly believe that today the work of authentic reenactors is appreciated by used by many academics, so keep up the good work!

[Dusty Merritt]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

As a poet and amateur historian I believe there's a great deal to be learned from reenactors. I'm working on a chapbook that focuses primarily on the experiences of common soldiers. The average Civil War book can only help me so much; most emphasize broad strategies and the decisions and lives of larger-than-life generals and politicians.

It's difficult to write about war while avoiding cliche and generalization--the real gold is in the so-called "minutiae." That's where the texture lies. For me, writing is often about the visceral, the immediate. Sure, I let my imagination fill in a lot of gaps. And context is always important. But the perfect little detail can sometimes inspire an entire poem.

I'm in no position to generalize about the world of academia at large. I gave up pursuing history on an academic level after undergrad. Too many historians (of course not all) eschew paradox in their efforts to cram a variety of source material into a cohesive, historiographically-oriented "thesis." Meh. There's a tremendous chasm between academic and experiential knowledge, which could be one reason for academia's discomfort when it comes to living history.

For what it's worth, I've found this website has been a fantastic resource for my work. Then again, what I'm writing has no thesis.

Brendan Hamilton

[threepdr]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

I've been involved with reenactments and living history since 1972. I've considered myself a serious historical interpretor for the last 20 years or so. Thats about when my true interets drifted away from reenactments to doing public living history events.

Some have said it in previous posts, but there must be made a distinction between "reenactments" and "Living History".

Reenactment generally do not encourage interaction between the spectators and the "interpretors". Indeed, most reenactors have little intetest in public education. They attend to educate themselves and spend time with peers with like interests. The large nature of many reenactments also do not encourage visitors to interact with reenactors where they can ask questions and learn what the reenactors may (or may not) be able to teach them. Reeantments essentially are "historical drama" for all practical purposes. One writer stated that reenactments "differ only from film and video because of its live nature."

Although there may be dedicated living historians who also participate in reenactments, most reenators only play lip service to educating the public. That brand of reenactor probably fits into what Tony Horowitz termed in Confederalte in the Attic as "Redneckus Americanus".:)

Living history, in its many forms, is a viable way to interpret history to the public. Its more intimate nature allows the visitor access to the interpreter so they can ask questions and broaded the scope of their experiance. Of course this is only true for public events where the living historians can talk to and other wise interact with visitors. Non-public events and immersion events are more akin to experimental archaeology where the intent is educating oneself. Those exeriances however are not wasted for public education because they will make the interpretor more effective when he does work with the public.

Mark Hubbs
Huntsville, AL

[Hank Trent]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

Living history, in its many forms, is a viable way to interpret history to the public. Its more intimate nature allows the visitor access to the interpreter so they can ask questions and broaded the scope of their experiance.

I think that's a key point: the main difference between academic history and living history is the method of interpretation. The actually academic research in preparation can be almost identical.

Had an experience last weekend that pointed that up. At a living history event, I met a spectator who'd written a book on approximately the same subject we were there to interpret, the early years of thoroughbred racing. It was clear she and I had covered virtually the same ground, as far as research. For example:

Her: "Colonel Bruce, I read once in a footnote that you'd seen the race between Grey Eagle and Wagner in Louisville, when you were much younger. Is that true?"

Me (who'd found the same fact as her source): "Yes, ma'am! I was just a boy, but it was the most exciting thing I'd ever seen. It was what first inspired me to become interested in thoroughbred racing..."

The actual factoid was out there, accessible to any researcher. I think I found it at the Keeneland library in an obituary of Bruce, but I'd need to check my notes.

She'd now run across it twice, interpreted two different ways, and one can see both the strengths and weaknesses.

When she read it interpreted in a book that quoted a primary source, she could if she wished trace it back to its source and verify it was true. That's one main advantage of that form.

Living history has the disadvantage that the sources aren't easily verifiable during the presentation, so there's more burden on the listener to judge its accuracy. For example, if she didn't know that my source said the race specifically inspired Bruce's interest in racing, she had no way of knowing whether I could "footnote" that also or if I only made it up. There's also no way to present degrees of accuracy, since everything must be presented with equal confidence. She had no way of knowing if my eye color, haircut, height or clothes were documented as accurate to Col. Bruce, a best guess, or just plain wrong, yet they all were mutely presented as equally real.

Those two things alone can turn off academic historians who are focussed on careful footnoting and scupulous accuracy. They make living history seem sloppy in comparison.

Yet living history's interpretive strength is that it brings things to life in a more memorable and full-sensory way. That's one reason I dislike third person living history. I think it takes the weakest points of two interpretive forms, written history and first-person living history, and combines them both. It neither allows for verifiable footnotes to primary sources, nor for the full emotional "you are there" experience.

If it's valid for an academic historian to give a lecture that could have been written out and silently read by the audience, I think it's also valid to interpret history in other forms as well, which have other strengths and weaknesses, including living history.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Abrams]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

I am one of the newer members here, and am still learning the ins and outs of this lifestyle/hobby. Maybe the viewpoint of a new guy could be useful to you?

What, in your opinion, is the educational value of reenacting?

In my opinion, "reenactors" do not educate. Watching them is like watching a live movie. Its entertaining. Exciting to watch at times. Something different to see and do on a weekend. But rarely did I learn much of true historic value watching reenactors burn powder. But its fun to watch.

"Living Historians" on the other hand, showed me what it was like to live back then. They got my imagination working. They actually inspired me to buy books, and to read and learn more about those times. They planted a seed, and gave me a desire to learn more. I believe Living Historians make history come alive in a manner that no movie, book or lecture can do. You see it. You smell it. You touch it. You can see them live it. It was what I learned from them that made me want to learn more.

What are the corollaries of inaccurate impressions in educating our spectators?

Please note, I give this from a spectators view:
I feel an accurate impression adds to the overall "believability" of an event for the spectators. It can allow a spectator to really feel they stepped back in time for a moment, and are observing history in action. When there are no modern eye wear or any other anachronisms, the spectator can, in some cases, immerse and learn and enjoy more about that segment of history and how people really lived then. Seeds can be planted in that fertile soil.

When you see a reenactor event, with visible coolers, cans of beer, modern eye wear and shoes, atv's pulling cannon into position before the battle, well, I just did not get any historical seeds planted. It was like a carnival, and this "reenactment of the battle" was just one of the acts. It was fun to watch, but I learned nothing of any value. Does this type of event have any value to Academia? I seriously doubt it, heh. But its fun for the participants and spectators I reckon.

How can we make the reenacting community a better tool for educating American children about the Civil War?

Take your kids to Living history events, not so much to the "Battle" of Jacksonville Illinois type events. I will support only Living History type events with my time and dollars. Promotion of Living History events, and the distinguishing of the difference is something we can do.

I think it unfair for much of Academia to group all reenactors, living historians, and hardcores into one group, and then ask their value to history and education. There are differences in these groups. Some have educational value. Some don't.

The professors that states that all 'reenactors' glorify war, and are basically rednecks still wanting to fight that war again, are as boneheaded as me saying all of Academia are socialistic liberals poisoning the minds of our children. There are some facts to support both viewpoints. But as I know there are many wonderful professors that do a great job at educating the next generation, there are also many living historians and 'reenactors' that also can offer many educational opportunities and make history come alive for the spectators. And in my opinion, the living historians have a greater chance to plant a seed in a young mind that can awaken their desire to learn more about history by making it come alive for them in a way that no book can.

And in many ways, awaking the desire to learn is something every professor should desire. For without the desire to learn more, no one will take their courses. ;)

Thats my new-guy's .02 :)

[Pat.Lewis]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

Reenacting, to my mind, takes a beating from academic historians for the same reason that academic military historians take a beating at the hands of their colleagues: there aren't great lessons to be learned in the minutia of military actions. Since the coming of social history, women's history, African American studies, and a host of beneficial historical fields since the 1960s, academia has justly seen pure military history as an exercise in historical self-gratification, one that serves only the historian. This was being identified even by the veterans of the Civil War themselves:

The causes from which events result are often of greater consequence than the events themselves. Nations and peoples, like individuals, act always from motives; and collective motives, like personal ones, may be either good or bad. ... It is because of this that the comparative importance of historical events depends very little on their physical extent, but almost wholly upon the motives of the actors or the sentiment they represent.

-- Albion W. Tourgee, Story of A Thousand (1896)

Today's academic military historian must make the case -- to both the university publishing houses and to their various departments -- that they reach beyond the battlefield and connect military events to broader trends in society, culture, politics, economics, etc. (it is for this reason that I identify myself as a social historian of the military when in professional circles). In Tourgee's terms, they have to examine those motives for which men went to war. Of course, Tourgee had thought that this would have come about much sooner. He didn't foresee how much the Lost Cause movement's focus on the battlefield would delay the onset of this broader military history that has only come in the last 25 years. He believed it would come much sooner. Nevertheless, he was correct in his observations and predictions on the eventual direction of military history.

History, in the past, has concerned itself with aggregations and events. It has told us how

"The King of France, with twice ten thousand men,
Marched up the hill, -- and then marched down again."

The history of the future will be more concerned to know why the "twice ten thousand" followed the crowned braggart "up the hill," than in the reasons that inclined them to march "down again," -- it will deal with the causes rather than with events.

Reenacting is seen by the academy as not having made the transition. It has not followed academic military historians into what has been dubbed this "new military history." Reenactors are understood as gearheads, drillheads, and consumers of tactical trivia. Is that a fair judgment on everyone in the community? No, but does it apply to the vast majority? I think so. In the past, I have bemoaned the lack of "why" threads on these boards when we seem to have no shortage of "what" and "how." When reenactors start dealing intelligently "with the causes" (i.e. consuming the latest trends in academic scholarship, not cowboying your own explanations for why men fought the war) "rather than with events," then we'll start to get a place at the academic table. Until then, we don't deserve one because we are a relic of an earlier academy.

[Bushrod Carter]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

In my opinion, "reenactors" do not educate. Watching them is like watching a live movie. Its entertaining. Exciting to watch at times. Something different to see and do on a weekend. But rarely did I learn much of true historic value watching reenactors burn powder. But its fun to watch.

"Living Historians" on the other hand, showed me what it was like to live back then. They got my imagination working. They actually inspired me to buy books, and to read and learn more about those times. They planted a seed, and gave me a desire to learn more. I believe Living Historians make history come alive in a manner that no movie, book or lecture can do. You see it. You smell it. You touch it. You can see them live it. It was what I learned from them that made me want to learn more.

This will not add to the academic discussion, but, from an "old guy" in the hobby's perspective…

This is the EXACT same thing that was being said TWENTY years ago – except we used the terms “Farb” and “Authentic” back then.

Funny how this cycle works.

[floridawar]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

Reenacting/living history seems to often be treated as a sociological phenomena in academic circles (at least the few I've been exposed to, and in the few books on the subjects I've perused). Regardless, in a theory of history class I experienced in 1999 this very subject was debated. The conclusions were that reenactment/living history had merit, but was not of itself a historical passtime (back tot he sociology theme...).
Regardless, in the historicist view, anything which happened in the past is fair game for study, and that includes how Confederates cooked around a fire, and how well a battalion could form line while moving through rough ground, etc. And as any fan of the science series like NOVA could attest, recreation can be an important part of study (I personnally love the trebuchet episode). Indeed, the only way to understand some of these minor themes is to recreate them in the context of their time.
In another spectrum, it was concluded that the empirical elements of reenacting (experience) of being in ranks, handling the musket, wearing the uniform, etc. etc. would excite the admiration of the likes of Michel Foucault etc. who placed greater emphasis on human experience than in the written word.

James "Archie" Marshall
Key West Avengers

[Rmhisteach]

Re: Reenacting's place in Academia

What a gret disscussion. I have enjoyed reading the different perspectives and expierences. In the early days of living history for me I was a 15 year old boy who was very impressionable and was totally lit on fire by the idea of living history. The question was what is the value within academia. Keeping that in mind I will tell you that I learning far more doing living history as a HS student than I did in the classroom . Combination of good experiences and bad teachers. In college most of my professors had an apprecition for me and what I did. One even let me teach. I have spent 12 years in the classroom and an additional 3 as a Principal. Good teachers teach , show and allow students to construct knowledge. Some in academia know and understand this . Some in academia have no background in education only the subject which they teach. Some would not know good instruction if it bit them in there hind parts. I evaluate teachers and I want them to engage the audience. I think that living history has had a real postive influence on me within academia.

Rod