"Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

[Charles Heath]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

This may help some folks:

"Freeman Tilden defined interpretation as "an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by first-hand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information."

William Alderson and Shirley Payne Low, authors of Interpretation of Historic Sites, define interpretation as the communication of the "essential meaning of the site and of the people and events associated with it" and see it as an obligation on those who preserve historic places as trustees for present and future generations.

Paul H. Risk, of Yale University, defines interpretation as "the translation of the technical or unfamiliar language of the environment into lay language, with no loss in accuracy, in order to create and enhance sensitivity, awareness, understanding, appreciation, and commitment." For Risk, "the goal of interpretation is a change in behavior of those for whom we interpret."

Interpretation in the National Park Service is based on three tenets, or general principals, that together constitute still another definition:

'Tenet 1 - [Historic] resources possess meanings and have significance.

Tenet 2 - The visitor is seeking something of value for themselves.

Tenet 3 - Interpretation, then, facilitates a connection between the interests of the visitor and the meanings of the resource."

Source: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publication...nterp/int4.htm

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Starting with Eric's post, I think this thread is starting to go somewhere. Thanks for the replies, and this discussion might even prove useful to more than just the guy (me) who started asking the questions.

I guess that, when I think of reenactor interpretation of history, the following things come quickly to my mind:

The Good:

* Allowing hundreds of spectators at battlefield sites to see things like a re-creation, on the original ground, of the charge of the 1st Minnesota toward Plum Run, or the charge of the 69th New York on Antietam's sunken road--that's stuff they read about, but "seeing" it is hopefully something altogether different, and educational in a useful way.
* Getting scores of park visitors into the ranks with a "battalion" of reenactors at a storied battlefield like Gettysburg or Chancellorsville, allowing them to march in formation on that field, and then giving them a few startling revelations that many will remember for a long time. Using one of Tilden's maxims, that's "provocation".

The Bad:

* On the subject of "reenactor interpretation", I think of the typical sideshow of--shall we politely say--"somewhat less than optimal" reenactors camped out each weekend in all their glory on the dirt area in front of the Gettysburg Wax Museum.

The Ugly:

* I also think about the uberfarbs that exist not just in my region but probably everywhere in the country. When I went to a local uberfarbfest (the type of event that's about 20 notches below where a typical mainstream event is) as a spectator about 4 or 5 years ago, I had a couple costumed idiot Confederates, one from Erie PA and one from Rochester NY, neither of which had any Southern roots or lineage, prattle on to my wife and me for twenty minutes about how slavery wasn't so bad, and that a lot of slaves actually were better off with their benevolent masters, and that thousands of slaves actively fought under arms for the Confederacy--as in, shooting at the bluebellies. One would have thought we were at a League of the South meeting, but these were Yankee-born and -bred morons who bought into the Lost Cause myths, and were running around this reenactment, and every event they attended (as they proudly told us), telling all who'd listen about "the real truth that they don't teach our kids in the shcools". To me that type of trash is about as bad as it gets when it comes to poor-looking reenactors who mislead the public not out of ignorance, but out of a desire for revisionism.

Of course, I'm not saying that any one of these is typical of a large number of reenactors; rather, those are just the items that first come to mind when I think "how reenactors interpret history".

I was in a "mainstream" group for about seven years. It was a sizable group--about 120 members at the time and able to field 60 men at local events--and yet it seemed that only about two or three of us had any knowledge at all of the history of regiment we claimed to portray. Others were pretty lost on subjects as basic as what battles the regiment had been in. When I heard many of them telling spectators that the regiment had fought at Gettysburg, or at the Wilderness, I used to cringe, because the regiment had been a neither of those battles. I believed then (and still do) that those guys were confused by older members talking about reenactments the group had attended in years past, and somehow transmuted that into the historical regiment being in the real battles. Yet, many of them spouted this stuff to spectators like it was gospel truth.

Reenactors can sometimes be brilliant about a topic, but that may often be a diamond in the rough rather than the norm. Certainly I've met enough reenactors who were just as knowledgable, sometimes moreso, on a topic or material item than a museum curator or park ranger. That's only natural, because some folks study niche aspects to the broad context of "The Civil War" (or any other topic you care to name).

When it comes to interpretation, most historic sites appear to rightfully be more interested in interpreting what happened at that site and perhaps its larger social implications. Reenactor interp programs sometimes lose sight of that, and revert into the familiar drill demo, firing demo, and explaining that the jackets were made of wool or wool-cotton blends. What should be discussed is, what was it like for the men who struggled on, camped on, marched on, or whatever, that spot? What were they thinking? Why were they there? What meaning did their presence there have? And to "provoke", then perhaps the reenactor should take those themes and bundle them into some summary that comes back and hits the spectator between the eyes by bringing it all home to them.

For example, when I talk to young kids, instead of just babbling to them about soldier rations and hardtack, I try to get them interested in the topic first by relating it back to their experience that day: "What did you have to eat for breakfast (or lunch) this morning...?" and so on, using those as lead-ins to get them interested in the notion of crackers, salt pork, and coffee. Pull 'em in, and relate it to them, and they become darned curious. Another example was a friend--and he is reading this thread so he knows I'm talking about him--showing up to an "interp area" we did at a regional event several years ago all decked out with cavalry kit (whereas the rest of us were portraying infantrymen, complete with saddle tree and some furnishings and a BARREL. He put the saddle on the barrel and "gave horsey rides" to really young kids, and handed each one a used, old horseshoe to take home when they "dismounted". Not only did each of these kids and their parents now have a burning curiousity to learn about Civil War cavalry, but they asked a load of good questions. That's addressing a couple of Tilden's maxims in a single swoop. :)

I guess that, first off, for effective interpretation with reenactors, a site owner needs reenactors who know what they're talking about; in other words, they have their facts straight. After climbing to the top of that mountain, then achieving good interpretation becomes just merely difficult... :)

In the defense of reenactors, I think that the rank and file often don't do a really hot job at creating effective interpretation because no one has given them any training on how to do it, nor have their thoughts been provoked on the topic on how their interpretive skills could be improved. A lot of reenactors think that setting up a tent and lugging out some camp gear, and then hitting "rewind" and "play" to run through the ol' "this is a brogan and this is my cartridge box" routine, followed by the musket firing demo at 2:00 p.m., is "great interpretation". The reality is that in some cases maybe that's fine and effective, but in many other cases, it's not only not hitting the bullseye, but missing the target entirely.

[Bill Fean]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Mr. O'Beirne
I know this isnt what your post was about but your story of your cavalry freind reminded me of this. A few years back I was walking on Big Round Top at Gettysburg dressed in my confederate uniform when a women asked if her son could "see" my uniform. I thought" Sure,of course. I love talking to kids and sharing information" It wasnt until the boy of about 7 0r 8 years of age put out his hand to "see me" that I noticed his white walking stick. At that point I let the boy try on may hat, "see"my buttons on my coat, and he just kept saying "Wow, Cool, Neat". I guess the point I'm trying to make is if you can walk away from an interpretation "KNOWING" you made a difference and peaked someones interest in history, then you did something right.
Also, I enjoy reading all your posts and articles in 'Civil War Historian'.

Most Respectfully

Bill Fean

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Here's a question: Does the typical reenactor interpretive program (by military impresionists) put too much of an emphasis on the gear and the weapons?

A comrade and I did a program at a local historical society last weekend, including giving a semi-formal lecture for an hour. We were there because the town historical museum had just opened its new exhibit on that town's citizens who'd served in the military during the Civil War. Our talk was titled, "The Experience of [the town name] Troops in the Civil War". I think that in our hour-long talk to an audience of about 25 or 30 people we discussed gear for maybe 2 minutes and the weapon and ammunition (complete with passing around a few repro Minie' bullets) for maybe another minute or two, and that was it. Mostly we talked about what it would have been like when the troops from this small, rural town in western New York State enlisted, to how they were trained (or not), to life in the army, life in camp, life in winter huts, life on the march, and maybe five minutes of discussing what the experience of battle was like. We continually attempted to relate the discussion to the experiences of the men in the four regiments that had the most men from this town (10th New York Cavalry, 116th New York Infantry, 160th New York Infantry, and 44th New York Infantry). It was a different type of talk than we've normally done, and I found it a lot more rewarding than talking about the differences between flannel cloth on fatigue blouses and broadcloth on Yankee frock coats. The fact that all the folks at the presentation stayed throughout the entire thing indicated that either they were totally asleep or quite interested--I'm still not sure which. :p

In this effort, we were trying to interpret for the museum visitors how the boys from this particular town experienced the Civil War, rather than the generic routine of telling them how many rounds were in a full cartridge box. We tried to put things into perspective that our audience could directly relate to, like when my comrade told the folks, while discussing the experience of battle, that ammunition could be expended quickly and re-supply was a problem: "To send men back to the wagon train in the rear for more ammo sounds easy," he told the audience, "But one box of ammo supplied 40 rounds to only 25 men, but it weighed a whopping 98 lbs, so imagine running a mile to the rear, through woods and over a stream to get that load, and then carrying it back while dodging cannon fire and rifle fire," and I saw many folks in the audience with wide eyes and nodding heads as if to say either, "I understand," or "Dang, I'm snoozing!"

At a living history we did in Virginia in 2005, he brought an accurate repro crate of rifle-musket ammo, loaded with iron to a weight of 98 lbs and we invited visitors to our camp--after cautioning them to not try this if they had anything resembling a back problem--to "pick up the ammo for 25 men"; that technique educated a few folks. :D

I guess that our talk last weekend was a bit different, coupled with the invitation to speak on interpretation as its done by reenactors, has me contemplatig these issues this week.

When I've seen talks by reenactors, they often revolve around the gear, and I wonder sometimes how interesting that truly is after a few minutes. In 2001 I saw a Confederate group talking about gear to a crowd at a living history for a full 45 minutes and the glaze-factor seemed pretty high among the park visitors. The officer-types doing the speaking got into the types of weave in jeancloth and got into the minutia of hand-sewn buttonholes. Faccinating stuff to reenactors and collectors, but is it really of interest to the typical visitor to an historic site? Certainly it wasn't following the maxim of provoking the crowd to relate to the history of what happened at that site.

I tend to think that we focus on the gear and drill because we know that so well. Knowing the history of some regiments that had men from a small, rural town somewhere takes work. But it's tailoring the talk to the audience, and framing it to solidly-documented history, and relating it to things the audience understands welll, that may be the better approach to interpretation by reenactors.

[Dignann]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Does the typical reenactor interpretive program (by military impresionists) put too much of an emphasis on the gear and the weapons?

I think it kind of depends on what the purpose of the talk and/or program is. Like you, many years ago I attended a living history program at a NPS site that was conducted by one of the most authentic units in reenacting at that time. Their knowledge far surpassed most, but they lost their audience within a few minutes when they began to explain the difference between wool, jean, and cassimere. While interesting to the persons conducting the program, it was of little relevance to the audience.

I think talks on gear and uniforms are important, if for no other reason than if you don't talk about it, your audience will ask. Now the trick is making the program relevant to the site and the war. I once gave a talk at a site that represented the war in Virginia in 1864. Dressed in my Confederate kit, I stood before the crowd and simply asked what they saw. They picked up on the bluish shade of my jacket, which allowed me to launch into a discussion of the Confederate supply system and its reliance on imported goods. I then proceeded to explain that my rifle-musket was an Enfield, I was wearing an Issac & Campbell knapsack and sporting British-made shoes. While I discussed my gear, I was able to build it around the central point that if it had not been for southern contracts with foreign firms, the Confederate army may not have been able to sustain itself in the field as long as it did. That was the simple point I wanted the audience to come away with - a larger economic and political aspect of the war, reflected in the apperance of the Confederate soldier. The uniform and equipment acted as a vehicle and the support for my theme.

Whenever I put a program together, I always sit back and think: How would I answer a member of the audience who asks me at the end of the program, "So what?" If I haven't tied my talk into something relevant to the site, or a centralized theme or point, then I have failed.

Eric

[DougCooper]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

I was a bit cranky in my first post, so will attempt to get with the spirit of this excellent thread.

I like Eric's post below and the simple question: what do you see?

Asking questions of the audience is always an excellent way to pull them in and it normally leads to very useful discussion. My favorite question is: why did I fight?

Others:

Why do we do this? (the hobby)

What can you do? (the public)

I find the more modern connections you can make to the reality of the war, the more folks will find it interesting. It could be anything from shelter tent - dog tent - pup tent, to tactics/weapons, medical, etc. The draft is always a fascinating subject...and of course is topical today.

The reality of the loss is also something I try to impress on folks...to get them to understand the sacrifice. The reality of post war life for the soldiers, especially the wounded, is something we don't discuss much, but probably should.

My basic goal is to educate enough that they will stand up and be counted to support the NPS, CWPT, regional orgs or whatever...so every presentation is geared toward action, whether volunteering, preservation fund raising, or simply understanding where they came from through more research.

Gear is just a means to an end.

[TeamsterPhil]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,

I think you are slowly zeroing in on what I would do in a presentation such as the one you planning to present.

The first step in my preparation would be to conduct a little research (wow, what a novel concept for an A-C thread!!) on what types of interpretation that your target audience would like to achive utilizing reenactors. Do they want talks on gear & weapons? Would they like to see drill & firing demonstrations? Are they more focused on the local links and social history as it relates to the CW? Are they heavy into interpreting foodways? Answering this question will go a long way toward tailoring your presentation to the audience.

Phil Campbell

p.s. By the way, thanks for the opportunity for making the Quartely Link.

http://www.interpnet.com/

[boozie]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

I think the talk given to the community in New York is the kind of thing that most people want to hear about. That is the type of information that is not put out there enough. As stated before alot of talks contain things such as gear, weapons and tactics, that most people with a passing intrest will have no clue as to what was just said or will drift off from the interpretation. What would most people like to hear about? What do we bring to the table from this side of the hobby?

I think back to questions I had before getting into the hobby. I had been in books that contained information about Battles, Leaders, Weapons etc. When you consider the type of people who attend a historcial interpretation or lecture, many, not all, have a descendant or some type of a direct link to the conflict. So many questions people have or want to hear about are the same as I had. What was the war like for Grandpaw Jones, Uncle Bob etc., or what were some wartime experiences that the 67th N.Y. had? The story of the common soldier and his life in the army is what most folks would like to hear about. Facings, firings, weapons, "this here is what they ate", often leaves people scratching there heads. As we all know here, there were many more hardship's than glory, it seems the common soldiers story is quite often lost during some historical interpretation's, even though that is what we try to portray.

What is done well on this side, research and living as close as possible to the 1860's soldier. There is that sense of relation by many, to the way of life during this period. There are many who do very well at interacting and relaying this information with groups of people on a battlefield or even a powerpoint presentation. Many on this forum have the knack to make a subject interesting and come alive in peoples minds. (I am not in those ranks) Interaction, when possible, always seems makes information stick togeather better also.

What is sometimes done poorly. 1.) To much on the politics, which often turns into a personal opinion. 2.)As stated before weapons and tactics. At 10 yrs. old my mother took me to my first event as a spectator, a well meaning reenactor gave me the 45 min. talk on a bayonet frog. 3.) To much information in a small amount of time, "The Chattanooga Campaign, told in 1/2 hour. 4.) The one guy that shows up, but does not know much, and tries to chime in on everything that is being said, "hey look at me." 5.) Not enough about the common soldier and to much on the leaders.

My uneducated .02
Respectfully,

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

I may jump back into this discussion but I would just like to say that when I've found leaders discussed, it's usually in the terms of tactics (example: General Lee moved his army south to Spotsylvania Court House after Grant did) and I find that people are particularly interested in the more humanist aspects of leaders. This includes failures of leaders (for example, Lee's failure to comprehend that the AoP and portions of the AoJ were outside Petersburg in mid-June 1864), how personal lives were impacting leaders, and the love and anger of one leader for another (like to me the whole Knoxville and aftermath campaigning is interesting because of Longstreet-McLaws-Evander Law drama, not because the Confederate forces failed and the Union troops won).

Perhaps this is not the job of reenactors but rather historian and interpreter view of leadership...another subject for another place and time.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

The first step in my preparation would be to conduct a little research... on what types of interpretation that your target audience would like to achive utilizing reenactors. Do

Phil,

That's an excellent point. By way of a reply I'll take two avenues:

For my presentation to this historical society, I think one thing they hope to gain from it is a better education for themselves about how to deal with and work with reenactors; in essence, it's educating them, rather than learning a bit from them about what they want to hear on this topic. Perhaps as a result of this presentation, they will think a bit more on what they want reenactors to do at the next living history at their site. Certainly, almost any site that hosts a living history would benefit from improved programs achieved in part through pre-event dialogue between the site owner and the people who will present the program, so that both parties are satisfied that the presentation will suit their needs.

To illustrate (the second avenue of my reply here) I offer the technical reps and salesmen who come into the office where I work to give lunchtime presentations about process equipment that they manufacture, and that they want us (as engineers) to incorporate into our designs and projects. Often these are "canned" presentations that appear to be typically geared toward maintenance personnel at an industrial complex or treatment plant, not engineers (many of whom are younger and less-experienced) who create drawings and write specs, and who do NOT use wrenches to replace leaking packing and wear rings on pumps (or whatever). How most of these salesmen's presentations goes over the head of most in our "audience" never ceases to amaze me. It's darned rare that, to start out the presentation, only about one in twenty of them ask, "So, tell me about yourselves for a few minutes, so that I can make this presentation as effective for you as possible. What do you want from this presentation?" So, we get a guy who gets our attention by purchasing pizza and wings for our lunch, but who puts us to sleep, because he spends 25 minutes talking about how to take the pump apart, when for us spending 5 minutes on that topic (because we're not a maintenance department) is sufficient to let us know the differences between this product and another one.

The point I'm attempting to make is that reenactors conducting interpretive programs can ask the audience if there's something that piques their interest, or that they want to learn about, or--better yet--ask the site owner who's sponsoring the living history or lecture what topic they want. If the site owner is like this little historical society I'm talking about--which hasn't given much thought to the subject because, heck, simply having reenactors onsite like animals in a zoo or something, is good enough for attracting some of the public to visit the site, which is the basic purpose behind most living histories--then it may be incumbent on the reenactor to ask the site owner if there's some particular thrust they wish the presentation to have, and then when making the presentation ask the audience a couple questions to start to gauge their interest level and level of knowledge, and then tailor the talk accordingly.

In the case of our small presentation last weekend, the museum didn't really seem to care much about what we talked about, so we selected the "Experience of the [Town] Soldier in the Civil War" merely because it was A) Somewhat different than the usual reenactor talk and B) Seemed to go well with the purpose of their new exhibit on the Civil War. In essense, we attempted to tailor our presentation to what we thought they'd ask for if they were more educated about how to cooperate with reenactors to set the stage for a truly focused living history program.

[billwatson]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

I think you're all thinking too hard.

The key thing to know about reenactors is that the essence of the exercise is to see, touch, hear and smell history, not just read about it.

People "get" that right away, and everything else flows in a natural dialogue from that starting point. The natural limits (nobody wants to actually die, our average physique is different, the age anomalies), the varying intensity (some folks are into the experience passionately, others are not) and what this gives you beyond what anyone can read (many of the posts in the thread offered examples of what it's like to see men maneuver, what it's like to try to cook food under adverse conditions, what it's like to actually have to make yourself comfortable on a cold night using the same materials and techniques available to them) are three lines of presentation that are obvious.

So their question is, apparently, "why do you do this?" and your presentation answers it. You want something not available from reading, only available from experience: Deeper understanding, understanding based on more than just reading the words.

[Rear Guard]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

A friend of my once said to me on the subject of speaking in front of school kids about the Civil War. "Find a topic for which you are enthusiastic and your enthusiasm will be felt by your audience". May I suggest that you examine your own personal enthusiasm for reenacting in front of your group. What draws you to do it? Why is it so compelling after all these years? Confederates in the Attic sort of stuff. Good Luck!

[Pvt_Jack_Bauer]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Bill you hit the nail right on head when you said

“So their question is, apparently, "why do you do this?" and your presentation answers it.”

Half the time that’s all the public even is so amazed about anyways. Sometimes we as reenactors become so immersed in our own world that when we do a presentation we try to feed our knowledge to the public with a dump truck rather than with a spoon. Friends, these were the people that dreaded going to history class when it was the most exciting part of the day for us in school. So when that dump truck of knowledge begins pouring on them at their local living history, thus begins the nightmares of 10th grade history class and reminds them why they should hate reenactors because we are subconsciously taking the place of that 10th grade history teacher. So take it easy and give it to them in small doses and always remember in emergency cases have spare hardtack to share with the crowd and a cartridge to fire. Always a crowd pleaser :)

Pvt. Brian Domitrovich

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Hallo!

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

While there are excellent posts here, I am having trouble tonight seeing where that question is being answered.
And maybe I am seeing it a bit differently (it is getting late..) ;)

At the moment, in light of the question- I am seeing such things as:

1. The "Ownership of History" Who has the right to decide or define what is History and what it should look like- Academia, Hollywood, authors, National Parks, historic sites, reenactors, living historians? Who has a right to "interpret" history for themselves and/or the public and in what ways?

2. The history of the rise of post WWII leisure time and the birth and rise of "Reenacting
Wars" as a Hobby. "History" as recreation, enjoyment, and pleasure. "History" as a social function. "History" as amateur research and self-learning

3. Centennials, Bicentennials, and Sequicentennial etc. "events" and the phenomena of Manassas 125 and the birth of the mega-national "event." The "Dog and Pony Show" versus the Immersion Event. A history of "war reenacting' and "site interpretation."

4. The Problem of History, Appearance, Impression, and Activities: the Mantra of the F/M/C/P/H/A Paradigm, evolution, and why all reenactors are not the same creature

5. The accepted or rejected Gospel of Research, for the Material Culture, Mental and Physical Man, Methods/Activities

6. Learning about (some aspects of) Life in the Past through emulation and immersion

7. How to play army and playing well with others without everyone fighting all the time- reducing animosity, finding fulfillment and belonging while increasing "authenticity," camaraderie, and self and public education.

8. Public and media stereotypes, and both accurate and inaccurate portrayals

9. Conservation and collecting

10. Battlefield and historic site preservation

Others' mileage, and Power Point Presentations, will vary... :-)
Curt

[Charles Heath]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

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?

Having enjoyed several of your presentations at our COIs in the past, I suppose you'll have some good visuals and bullets on the Power Point slides, as usual. People tend to speak best about that which they know best, so rather than beat on the "here's what reenactors often do that's not in acordance with the history they portray," or "why it's bad to rely on reenactors for interpretation," perhaps the presentation would be more useful to capitalize on the highly successful public interpretive programs that you yourself have helped create in the last decade. After that, perhaps mention some of the few programs we have enjoyed where the public wasn't around, for those who may believe reenactors are but the cows in the Far Side cartoons of yore. Winter 1864 would be an excellent example of an event where "we do for ourselves."

Something we do in the conceptual stage of event planning is to ask the landowner what they would like to see accomplished, and if any restrictions exist. I remember a Wilderness NPS LH not too long ago where the Friday Night Surprise was the suggestion that federals represent the Texas lads in their charge at Saunder's Field. It made the site staff giggle with glee, and the public who were part of that scheduled program were able to see and hear something besides the empty field. It was a General Electric moment, "we bring good things to life."

Oftentimes, the restrictions drive the programs as much as the desires of the landowner or event designers. Some of the work arounds have been a scream, in more ways than one. That would be worth an article in itself, but I digress.

Perhaps a positive tack is best, because they won't get a lot of the inside jokes in the hobby, so "why it's good to have reenactors do interpretation" is a good starting point. I wrote and deleted a list of about 100 top moments from living histories, battle reenactments, and marches you've had a hand in, but no one would believe we'd ever done those things, and it started sounding too much like a eulogy.

Sometimes I don't quite believe we've done those things we have, and the parks and public would have been much poorer had we not. Experiences I'll certainly treasure for a lifetime, that's for sure.