Tweet
Re: The Current State of Authentic Civil War Living History
If this were South Africa, then maybe that might be relevant. There are some parallels, in that the Civil War did not resolve every issue in 1865, and the attitudes that lead to the Civil War continued in the South to this day, despite efforts to resolve the issues. South Africa is still dealing with the ramifications of colonialism and apartheid. I can only speak of public perceptions held in the United States, especially in the southwestern part of the nation. I cannot speak for Mississippi, but I know and regret the public perceptions held in parts of northwest Georgia where I used to live. I also cannot speak for the authentic side of the hobby, since there are no authentic groups out here, just individuals trying to bring ourselves to the highest standards. Some are more successful than others and I admit that I am not successful, but I am trying. With that said, there are no EBUFU events out here. There are rangers and volunteers in costume at fort and museum events, but El Rancho de las Golondrinas seems to be uncertain if they are going to emphasize post-annexation living history, and the battlefield events seem to be fading away. I am seeing more interest and awareness of the Indigenous and Hispanic contributions to history and culture, which is not surprising as they represent the majority of the population in New Mexico. The forts and museums are responding by increasing their focus on those topics, along with Black history and culture in the state.
The Civil War had relevant events in New Mexico, despite us being far away from the East Coast. There was an armed invasion from Texas, but that was not the first time Texas tried to invade New Mexico. There were two major battles and a few skirmishes during that campaign. Otherwise, the army out here was on garrison duty to make sure the Texans did not return. During that time, the state and territorial volunteers out here were used by the Army to destroy the food soures and settlements and property of the Navajo and Apache peoples, in order to round them up and force them to live in the Fort Sumner concentration camp. Many died during the initial phase of ethnic cleansing, and many died at the fort when crops failed and the Army did not provide enough rations. Ironically, the people who would be "better off elsewhere than the US" are the Indigenous people whose families and peoples lived here long before the Spanish and the English showed up.
That is the Civil War out here. Texans launching yet another invasion, and crimes against humanity against the Indigenous people. The activities in the East were (and still are) viewed as a fight between one group of white Anglos fighting another group of white Anglos to determine whether black Anglos would be free or slaves. When people show up to events here, they want to see examples of material culture from the era, not choreographed fights. They want to compare daily life and daily materials, what clothing felt like and what people used, how people did things before modern materials and modern technologies. When they do want a greater picture, they ask "what's in it for me, and are there people like me represented at the event?". A bunch of white people standing around talking about white people things will cause people to lose interest. The Indigenous and Hispaņo involvement in the war catches people's attentions. That is partly why the Civil War events here are fading away, because for far too long people just see it as Anglos from Colorado versus Anglos from Texas.
But the historical context before the War and after the War are just as essential, as we are not holding events in a vacuum and the war itself was not in a vacuum. A group of Texans standing around a New Mexico fort wearing embarrassing uniforms and rambling about states' rights (something I have witnessed) is a disservice to the public. A group of loyal Americans standing around a New Mexico fort wearing embarrassing uniforms and rambling about protecting white settlements from the Indians (something I also have witnessed) is equally a disservice to the public. It is not just the embarrassing uniforms that needs to be addressed, although getting rid of period-incorrect accessories and the fade-to-green trousers is a very good first step. What the hobby overall needs is honesty. People going to the forts and museums for events already know why the war was fought, whether or not they are willing to admit it. I have only seen a handful of international visitors at these sorts of events. They are not looking for people to tell them insulting myths about the war. What is more offensive, someone saying "the Texans invaded again in order to annex New Mexico and we drove them off, and then we rounded up the Apaches in order to have the excellent cattle and mining land they claimed to own", or someone saying "the North and the South fought in New Mexico over states' rights versus federal organization, and then we protected the frontier from marauding Apaches"? The truth can be quite ugly, but only myths are offensive, especially when the audience knows the truth. Saying "what they did was bad" is not apologetic, it is just the truth, and something that should be said for all instances of historic injustices.
We can say that there are no Neo-Confederates or white supremacists in our side of the hobby, but that is meaningless to the general public. EBUFU events with no audience are simply not on their radar screens. When I am at the forts or museums, I am just another random Civil War cosplayer in one of the whitest hobbies in this state, regardless of my knowledge of the past or the authentic nature of my clothing. Society by and large is rejecting Neo-Confederate canards, hence statues coming down and schools being renamed and state flags changing and the calls for renaming Army forts. The general public seems to struggle with finding a distinction between mainstream Confederate living historians and Neo-Confederate non-historians. Regardless of how we feel and what we believe, what does society see in us? Does the general public even see a distinction between us and the mainstream crowd?
If this were South Africa, then maybe that might be relevant. There are some parallels, in that the Civil War did not resolve every issue in 1865, and the attitudes that lead to the Civil War continued in the South to this day, despite efforts to resolve the issues. South Africa is still dealing with the ramifications of colonialism and apartheid. I can only speak of public perceptions held in the United States, especially in the southwestern part of the nation. I cannot speak for Mississippi, but I know and regret the public perceptions held in parts of northwest Georgia where I used to live. I also cannot speak for the authentic side of the hobby, since there are no authentic groups out here, just individuals trying to bring ourselves to the highest standards. Some are more successful than others and I admit that I am not successful, but I am trying. With that said, there are no EBUFU events out here. There are rangers and volunteers in costume at fort and museum events, but El Rancho de las Golondrinas seems to be uncertain if they are going to emphasize post-annexation living history, and the battlefield events seem to be fading away. I am seeing more interest and awareness of the Indigenous and Hispanic contributions to history and culture, which is not surprising as they represent the majority of the population in New Mexico. The forts and museums are responding by increasing their focus on those topics, along with Black history and culture in the state.
The Civil War had relevant events in New Mexico, despite us being far away from the East Coast. There was an armed invasion from Texas, but that was not the first time Texas tried to invade New Mexico. There were two major battles and a few skirmishes during that campaign. Otherwise, the army out here was on garrison duty to make sure the Texans did not return. During that time, the state and territorial volunteers out here were used by the Army to destroy the food soures and settlements and property of the Navajo and Apache peoples, in order to round them up and force them to live in the Fort Sumner concentration camp. Many died during the initial phase of ethnic cleansing, and many died at the fort when crops failed and the Army did not provide enough rations. Ironically, the people who would be "better off elsewhere than the US" are the Indigenous people whose families and peoples lived here long before the Spanish and the English showed up.
That is the Civil War out here. Texans launching yet another invasion, and crimes against humanity against the Indigenous people. The activities in the East were (and still are) viewed as a fight between one group of white Anglos fighting another group of white Anglos to determine whether black Anglos would be free or slaves. When people show up to events here, they want to see examples of material culture from the era, not choreographed fights. They want to compare daily life and daily materials, what clothing felt like and what people used, how people did things before modern materials and modern technologies. When they do want a greater picture, they ask "what's in it for me, and are there people like me represented at the event?". A bunch of white people standing around talking about white people things will cause people to lose interest. The Indigenous and Hispaņo involvement in the war catches people's attentions. That is partly why the Civil War events here are fading away, because for far too long people just see it as Anglos from Colorado versus Anglos from Texas.
But the historical context before the War and after the War are just as essential, as we are not holding events in a vacuum and the war itself was not in a vacuum. A group of Texans standing around a New Mexico fort wearing embarrassing uniforms and rambling about states' rights (something I have witnessed) is a disservice to the public. A group of loyal Americans standing around a New Mexico fort wearing embarrassing uniforms and rambling about protecting white settlements from the Indians (something I also have witnessed) is equally a disservice to the public. It is not just the embarrassing uniforms that needs to be addressed, although getting rid of period-incorrect accessories and the fade-to-green trousers is a very good first step. What the hobby overall needs is honesty. People going to the forts and museums for events already know why the war was fought, whether or not they are willing to admit it. I have only seen a handful of international visitors at these sorts of events. They are not looking for people to tell them insulting myths about the war. What is more offensive, someone saying "the Texans invaded again in order to annex New Mexico and we drove them off, and then we rounded up the Apaches in order to have the excellent cattle and mining land they claimed to own", or someone saying "the North and the South fought in New Mexico over states' rights versus federal organization, and then we protected the frontier from marauding Apaches"? The truth can be quite ugly, but only myths are offensive, especially when the audience knows the truth. Saying "what they did was bad" is not apologetic, it is just the truth, and something that should be said for all instances of historic injustices.
We can say that there are no Neo-Confederates or white supremacists in our side of the hobby, but that is meaningless to the general public. EBUFU events with no audience are simply not on their radar screens. When I am at the forts or museums, I am just another random Civil War cosplayer in one of the whitest hobbies in this state, regardless of my knowledge of the past or the authentic nature of my clothing. Society by and large is rejecting Neo-Confederate canards, hence statues coming down and schools being renamed and state flags changing and the calls for renaming Army forts. The general public seems to struggle with finding a distinction between mainstream Confederate living historians and Neo-Confederate non-historians. Regardless of how we feel and what we believe, what does society see in us? Does the general public even see a distinction between us and the mainstream crowd?
Comment