"Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

[Kevin O'Beirne]

If you were asked (as I have been) to make a presentation to a history-minded group of non-reenactors, with the presentation titled, "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors", what would you talk about?

As I see it, this can cover a heck of a lot of ground, ranging from extremely "pro-reenactor" to "anti-reenactor", to "here's what reenactors often do that's not in acordance with the history they portray" to "here's what they do correctly", to "why it's good to have reenactors do interpretation" and "why it's bad to rely on reenactors for interpretation", to many other areas and views.

Figured it'd be an interesting question to post here, and maybe some of the responses will provide some insight into developing such a presentation.

[dusty27]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,

You gotta paint us in the positive. TV and other media have the negative covered.:tounge_sm

[Kace]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin has it right. There are more negative images of reenactors out there than postive. You can always count on the local paper to carry a photo of the farbiest guy at an event as part of its coverage. I think it is important that non-reenactors hear and learn as much as possible about positive images so they can tell the difference when the run a farb.

Plus, human nature being what it is, folks will carry and retell negative stories more often than postive ones. You know the old addage, "An unhappy customer will tell everyone he/she can about something while a happy customer will only tell a handfull."

Kace

[brown]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

As this one person sees it:
The goal of a living historian is to give the learners (both him/herself and visitors as learners) a very tangiable expierence with the past. I'd have to recognize some of the negatives and then counter them with a strong position on learning and teaching through a very approachable and understandable means.
Thanks for asking for input.
Lindsey Brown

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

You can always count on the local paper to carry a photo of the farbiest guy at an event as part of its coverage.

Or a female soldier....

[Union Navy]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin:
I have no doubt you know good reenacting from "marginal." As a professional natural and cultural history interpreter, I'll stick in my two cents. Maybe you should not concentrate so much on the "reenactor" part and focus on the "historical interpretation" part. If you give them a tool kit to recognize good historical interpretation, then who is doing it is not so important. Not all reenactors are living historians - "the museum that talks back." Not all reenactors have the varied communications skills, theatrical flair and knowledge of learning styles necessary - but then, neither do all historical interpreters. Just revisit PeeWee Herman at the Alamo.

Some points related to interpretation:
- Have a goal in mind.
- Have 3 to 5 measurable objectives you will stress and restress.
- Have a theme - a phrase you will refer back to frequently.
- Interpretation takes complex and sometimes conflicting information and restates it in a more easily understandable form.
- Know about your audinece's history and experiences. Any information not related to something within the experience of your audience will be sterile.
- Remember learning styles, and have some demonstrations, music, up-and-move-around stuff, visual aids.

Not all historians are good interpreters, and not all reenactors are bad ones. If your audience can be trained what to look for - accuracy in material culture, period attitudes and behaviors, understanding of a variety of views - they can make their own judgements about who to believe.

If you need any "consulting," I'll be happy to help.

Bob
Director of Education, Allen County Parks
Life member, National Association for Interpretation (NAI)
NAI Visual Communications Section Chairman
Presenter, Civil War Preservation Trust Teacher Workshop, 2007

[DougCooper]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

I would post a pictures of Tom Yearby, Dusty Chapman and Brian Pohanka and talk about what they have done as soldiers, what they have meant to the hobby, to the old soldiers and the $1000's ($ millions in Brian's case) they have raised for preservation and education over the years.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Folks,

Thanks for all the input, but it's slightly off what I was hoping for in this thread. Perhpas a few clarifications are in order...

First, sort of like the NPS, I espouse the basic concepts of historical interpretation as set down years ago by Freeman Tilden, so that's the gist of any talk I give on "interpretation" and that's where I'm coming from in this talk I have to give to a local historical society--which is made up mostly of older, retired folks who are curious about reenactors and wand a talk about reenactors (not about "interpetation in general" as interesting of a topic as that is).

I don't plan this as some type of commerical on behalf of the reenacting hobby to counter negative images in the media. That's not the point of a presentation about "historical interpretation by reenactors", although PERHAPS some cautions about what they may see at a typical reenactment and how it differs from the historical record could potentially be one thing to be mentioned.

The topic of "historical interpretation by reenactors" is so broad that I was sort of hoping for some input on what areas should be explored in the presentation. What do reenactors do well in this regard? What do they NOT usually do well in interpreting history for "spectators"? What type of emphasis should there be in a reenactor's interpretation at a given site or on a given topic? For this particular historical society, which occasionally hosts living histories by reenactors, what should they be looking for from the reenactors they work with in terms of quality, style of presentation, topics to be discussed? How can a site owner who's inviting reenactors to do historical interpretation at their site best prepare the reenactor so that the site owner's expectations for the interpretive program are met, and what are the most effective forms of communicating those expectations? What are the myths about reenactors and what are the realities (for example, one thing that most folks don't seem to know is that "we" are not all of a single mindset or quality level, nor do we belong to a single world-wide oganization)?

These are just a few questions that the presentation could attempt to address, as they just popped into my mind while writing this post. Are some of these topics better or more important than others, and are the other topics that should be considered that aren't in this stream-of-consciousness post? :)

Seriously: If you had to give a presentation to a historical society "about reenactors", what would you talk about?

[nrandolph]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,

Well, I hope this is more of what you had in mind. When I give a presentation, and it usually is to 5th and 6th grade kids at my school, I talk about the uniform, gear, rifle, have examples of minie balls to show them and discuss the proper usage of each piece. Kids are very fascinated with the rifle and bayonet and ask a lot of questions about that, but they also are interested in the mess gear and it's proper use. After showing and describing each item, I pass it through the group so that they can touch the item and see why it's different from our modern clothes, cooking gear, etc. (of course, this doesn't extend to the weaponry! I'm lucky that at least here in WV, our administration believes that if you gonna talk about the Civil War, you've got to have the weaponry to show the kids too).
I'll then open the session up to questions and always get around to the subject of battlefield preservation while answering them. I'm also fortunate that we have several teachers that do units on the destruction of the battlefields here in the East, so the kids are somewhat up on the subject. In fact, out 5th grade took up a collection of $95.00 and gave it to me to use for the Rich Mt. preservation drive this past summer.
I find that each piece of equipment stimulates their curiosity more and more. So much so that I've never been able to answer every question they want to ask in a forty five minute time.

Neil Randolph
1st WV

[Dignann]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,

If I were asked to give a talk on reenactors, I would structure it around the history of our hobby and the strides it has made. Beginning with its inception as a form of commemoration during the centennial of the Civil War to the more interpretation-oriented programs of today. While I would certainly mention some negatives, I would focus on the positives. Nothing can kill a program faster than a bunch of negative statements, especially when the audience it most likely expecting something else.

There is so much you can discuss. Reenacting's focus on pageantry in the 1960's, rather than authenticity. It's rise of popularity and the enthusiasm that spawned the large-scale events during the war's 125th anniversary, and the realization that events could be money-makers, along with the corporate sponsorship of events that occurred during the 1990's. Hollywood's recognition of our hobby with the movies Glory and Gettysburg. The fact that reenactors can be seen just about every day on some History Channel program. The burgeoning focus on scholarly research within the community and a new focus on research-based authenticity. The fact that there are different types of reenactors. The renewed interest that the NPS has in utlizing us for interpretive programs. Finally, an effort by many to become involved in the battlefield preservation movement. (These last three might hit home to a historical society.)

I guess I would discuss the growth of the hobby from the centennial's reenactments as commemorative "plays," through national attention and reconginition, to a desire within the community for a more "accurate" portrayal and acceptance as more than just "weekend warriors." We are a knowledgable bunch, on the whole, and can be an excellent resource for historical sites and organizations.

Just a few of my random thoughts.

Eric

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Neil,

Hello there! Good stuff, to be sure, but this presentation is not about "this is my uniform, here's the rifle, and now we'll pass around the pieces of hardtack for the brave to take a bite from"; in fact, I plan to do this talk in modern attire using a Powerpoint presentation and a Proxima projector.

I'm not sure that the thrust of what I plan to discuss at this thing is really getting through, so I'll leave this one for now. Thanks to all who offered input. :)

[nrandolph]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,

Yes, I'm waaaay off on that other post! I saw the "presentation" word and took off on what I do. I reread your post that described what you were going to, and I honestly believe that most of the questions you asked in the large paragraph near the end would seriously fulfill what any non-reenactor historic soceity would want to know. I guess by the end of a school week, nearing Christmas, my reading comprehension skills have taken a beating!
Good Luck! Your skills are such that I'm sure you'll be just fine!

Neil Randolph
1st WV

[paulcalloway]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Mr. Campi is fond of sending me these slick little maps that lay out a particular battle against a topical map. These maps often show the positions of various brigades with blue or red rectangles. Thats all well and good but it really doesn't give you any sense for what that brigade really looked like as it took that position.

We can read about tactics and manuevers, we can lay them out on paper, we can even put them on the big screen with CGI but seeing it done in front of your eyes is still a completely different item. It's educational.

Reenactors do fairly well at demonstrating napoleonic manuevers and tactics - wholly imperfect yes but if a picture speaks a thousand words, seeing a battalion of reenactors correctly executing battalion drill speaks volumes. I'm certain this is why the History Channel uses reenactor footage for most of its Civil War content. Animating rectangles around a map just doesn't get it done.

Does anyone recall Perryville 2001 when we put together a 100 man company? For the first time in my reenacting lifetime we went through company drill in a full sized company. It was impressive to look down that long line of blue with the full knowledge that this was only a single company.

What I never expected was the sound of 100 men executing a wheel into line. It was like a stampede - men in ranks needed to hold their tongues because the calvalcade of footsteps made it difficult to hear any auditory command.

When a reenacting battalion marches or takes the parade ground - people stop to watch.

Site owners would do well to coordinate reenacting organizations to be moving, demonstrating, drilling all throughout the day- with interpretators on hand to explain to an observant crowd what it was they were actually seeing... and to be quick to answer questions.

Sitting in our camps while the spectators gawk from 100 feet away doesn't accomplish a thing - in fact I think it's a distraction from the aforementioned, educational activities.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Beginning with its inception as a form of commemoration during the centennial of the Civil War...

Eric,

I think there are probably other roots and branches in the family tree of ACW reenacting. If my understanding is correct, in the early days of the hobby, there was little distinction (if any) between "reenacting" and "skirmishing" (a la the NSSA). Today, all that these two hobbies have in common is that they are costume-based hobbies.

Also, the time between 1940 and 1960 was a transition period where living memory of the war finally ended and "commemoration" began. No longer could you attend a GAR reunion or Gettysburg commemoration and see the veterans in the flesh. Reenacting and Skirmishing hobbies hit their stride in this time. This time period is directly analogous to our current era (1990 - 2010) and World War One.

Also, I would be curious to learn more about the history of other hobbies. My hunch is that reenacting of other eras (particularly the Revolution and WW2) grew from the success of our hobby. However, I may be waaaaaaay off base. Just a thought.

[sigsaye]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,

Perhaps, you could suggest that the people who are inviteing the Reenactors might want to become familure with the local "Pool" of "Living Historians". That way they would have an idea as to who would be worth the trouble of contacting. This is not to put any one down, but we all know that there are groups out there that along with being on the low end of the knowledge scale are also not all that reliable.

Then, the site managers would be able to coordinate with them the type of program they were looking for. For example, if the site wants a specific time period with a certain activity (trainign camp 1861) they would need to inform the inturprative group that this is what they want more so than than scruffy veterans on campaign. Including all the impedimentia of the very early war "Back Home" Rondevouze. Again, if scruffy veterans on campaign is the order of the day they would need a group that is comfortable leaving the family, the cooler and the tents etc. at home.

I think basically, the site folks would need to know what they want. Being history minded, they would also most likely have a good idea of what is correct for their sites. They should ask serious, hard questions of any one they ask to come onto their sites. Ask the reenactor what they know about the history of the site and the basic time period they are looking for. The site managers should know what sort of presentation they are looking for. "First person"? I personaly hate first person, it always just sounds "Cheesey" to me. Meaning that I know that I can't pull it off. Some folks do it well, and if that is what the site folks ant they should hear a bit of the groups "Talk the Talk". The site folks should insure that the groups they invite can appear in the proper attire and gear for the presentation they are looking for.

As you said earlier, Reenactors come from all parts of the spectrum just like bowlers and fishermen. They need to educate them selves as to what they have available and not be afraid to shop for what they want. Soundl like the best thing they could is make contact with a knowledgable "Go To Guy" to help them sort the wheat from the chaff.

Steve Hesson