Living History and Reenacting

[jdonbr]

Dear Folks of the AC,

I was curious if any of you out there may be able to help me with some information. I am in a public speaking course at a local community college and my current assignment is to do an 8-10 minute informative speech. I had a topic in mind but after talking with the instructor he got me to thinking about this "What is the difference between living history and reenacting?" So if you all don't mind I would like to ask you the following questions and if you choose to answer them please let me know if I can use you as a source in my speech bibliography. When answering these questions you can either send me a pm on here or you can send me an email, either one will work. Thank you in advance for your help.

Questions:

1) What are the differences between living history and reenacting?

2) What is a living historian?

3) What is a reenactor?

4) What, if at all, makes living history and reenacting the same?

Thanks again!

Josh Donbraska
donbraska@gmail.com

[BShajari]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

Josh-

I've done both and can probably offer a little insight...Living History could be defined as (in my own words) opening up our hobby to people who aren't into re-enacting and enabling them to actually feel what it could have been like in the past. In other words, if you have an encampment setup, you're just there to show the average 21st century person how life was in that particular time period. If you're speaking to a group, particularly a college class, you talk about what life was like in another time while describing your uniform, debunking myths, answering questions, letting them pick up and feel the stuff, etc.

Reenacting is where we (as reenactors) get together and LIVE the life in whatever time period we are reconstructing. We aren't concerned with having to explain things to tourists or people who come to a static display. Reenacting in our world is not only living that period for a few days, but reconstructing it as accurately as possible so that we can feel the experience for ourselves.


Pretty basic, but I've been asked the same questions before and that's how I usually respond.

Brian

[jdonbr]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

Brian,

Thanks for your help on this! This will probably be one of the most difficult speeches that I have had to prepare.

Josh

Mr. Donbraska, you must sign all your posts per forum rules with all of your name, not just your first name. - Silas Tackitt, one of the moderators.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

Questions:

1) What are the differences between living history and reenacting?

2) What is a living historian?

3) What is a reenactor?

4) What, if at all, makes living history and reenacting the same?

I think the meanings attached to the two are so variable and vague, the questions can't be answered and are virtually meaningless.

Some may say that a reenactment includes a battle and a living history doesn't. But then, there are reenactments of trials, hangings, occupations, etc.

Some may say that living history has higher standards of historical accuracy, but there are some "reenactments" which are more accurate than some "living histories," but they use the term "reenactment" because it's more common to say we're having a "Reenactment of the Battle of X" than a "Living History of the Battle of X," regardless of the standards.

Spectator vs. non-spectator--could go either way.

Sometimes "reenactors" will call themselves "living historians" to separate themselves out from the negative connotation that "reenacting" has, as a good-ol-boy theme-camping hobby, but others will just say they're "reenactors" and let their impressions speak for themselves.

From a historical interpretation standpoint (and there's another phrase: "historical interpreter,") reenactments supposedly communicate about the past using the techniques of living history, and living history techniques can be used to reenact an incident from the past, so they're both entangled.

Honestly, I'm not seeing any definitions of the words, that one can find most people agreeing to, without someone else immediately offering many counter-examples.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[BarryDusel]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

There is variables Here are mine.
In my case: Living History involves more research. It's historical education at it's best when done correctly. IMOHO, living historians are more serious. Then again, I've seen Living Histories put on by reenactors that leave me awestruck and shaking my head. Living historians will in my case go the extra mile . Reenactors on the other hand will in all liklihood be less serious. As I was told by a reenactor once. " If I wanted to teach I'd go to school and get a teachin degree." He was also wearing a "uniform" procured from a huckster in Gettysburg. He felt his kit was every bit as good as a kit bought from a sutler in Ohio. Reenactors by and large say "That's close enough!" . All events whether put on by the HC Campaigner or NSSA streamer are reenactments of history . It's the mind set of the person ie, the living historian or reenactor that makes the reenactment quality or not.

[Alexander Vasquez]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

I don't wish to sound glib, but in my humble opinion, Living History is primarily about education, whereas reenacting is primarily about entertainment. In the living histories I have done, participants and spectators were learning about historical scenarios and situations from a research-based perspective. In the reenactments I have done, the greater emphasis (as it seemed to me) was on entertaining people and if education was a by-product so much the better.

Use or not, as is your choice, and best wishes on your presentation. After 16 years of teaching I can say that each time you get in front of a group, it gets easier!

Alexander Vasquez
Late of Co. C, 15 IA

[BShajari]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

Josh how did this go? Great responses by everyone. It's good to hear different opinions on this.

[DocReynolds]

Re: Living History and Reenacting

I havelooked over what ahs been said..gotta say I agree with what has bee said...But wanted to add a different viewpoint or rephrasing perhaps. Living histories can be more focused on"1st person"...with reeancting being 3rd person...Having lapsed into "well, we went 20 days with rain,..." etc vs. The regimental history noted that they encountered 20 straight days of rain. Living history too more often means being willing to do with less...and NOT watch the clock (i.e. go the weekend nto just when the public is watching.) The educational part which is more typical of Living History is even more powerful when you are speaking from personal experience: so the research is not just "Book learnin': but experiential based