"Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

these were the people that dreaded going to history class

I'm thinking you're starting to realize what this discussion is about.

[Pvt_Jack_Bauer]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Sorry Kevin, didnt mean to seem like an idiot on that end. Was more answering RearGuards and billwatson's responses...but I guess my original statement stands just without the "didnt like to go to history class".

Pvt. Brian Domitrovich

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Sorry, didn't mean to be "flip". :)

[SCTiger]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

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)?

-Kevin

That's a good singular topic and one that if addressed properly would really help the image of reenactors, beyond attacking uberfarbs or wading into the quagmire of the Lost Causer/romantic/moderate/ PC version of the war.

I see most good reeanctors as objective observers and willingly to accept and preserve the facts, no matter how distasteful they are to modern feelings. Reenactors with no modern agenda or axe to grind. I would represent and show case examples from past events where reenactors, both mainstream and campaigner, raised money for preservation, wrote letters and advocated preserving history off the field, sponsored and executed events. I would highlight the good living historians who help present museum programs or conduct events that help to educate a public that seems to know more about the lives of amateur singers than they do about history.

So list the myths. Do we know everything there is to know about the American Civil War? Some might want you to believe that, but often I have answered with "I don't know" or directed them to someone that does.

Some of us are willing to be "internal spectators" and are content with learning along side the public. Some speak without any knowledge, but are self classifed as experts just because they have read a few books and reenact.

Just because we wear the "jean wool" we don't have a right to bully other organizations or groups into seeing our view of history. Some history groups are quite happy with discussing "grand startegy" and some Civil War Roundtables never get into the small details that we are more focused on. For that setting a CW reenactor might not fit in.

We also have lives outside the hobby and we are almost normal people :D. Just kidding! There is a ton of myths you could deconstruct. Unfortunately the media and a few wrongly placed kooks will always get their share of attention. Os maybe you should spend most of the time accentuating the positive.

I would use some quality pictures and give tangible examples of where reenactors have made a real impact, just leave the dirty laundry in the wash room. As Heath stated before, most of the public can't differentiate between the various grades of reenactors anyhow. Leave out the lingo, the inside jokes and rituals, it's too much for the non-reenactors to process.

[GrumpyDave]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

I'd start and, maybe the whole program would be how I'd go about it. From doing the research, communicating the research, setting up the intrepative program and excuting it. If you're talking to reenactors, they should have some simple knowledge on how to do some of the above and, maybe, just need pointed in the right direction.

[Charles Heath]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

"Do you really want to be one of the masses, or do you want to be one of the special few who have shared the 'experience?" - Jim Butler

This works on so many levels.

[flattop32355]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Should have read the entire thread first. Now I see where you were aiming for.
Others have hit on the true subject.

[Charles Heath]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Bernie,

All the pieces matter. :)

[BenjaminLDavis]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

A very interesting discussion - I have no grand thesis, but I would touch on what I consider an
essential for keeping the attention of a crowd: if you are portraying a common soldier, they
want to know what YOU saw, felt, thought, read, i.e., you have to filter an entire era through
the senses of one individual. To put it in context, if you were to talk to a visitor from the
future about 9/11, they would want to know how it affected YOU - in my individual case, I
would relate the very real experience of not knowing for many hours if my nephew, a
commodities broker who worked in the complex, was alive or dead, and the happy tears
when we found out that fate had saved him. History is a giant, unmanageable presentation
if one tries to do it on the whole, but seen, tasted and touched on a personal level, and it
can have wings on it!
The subject of generals was touched on - unless debating, out of first person, with a very
knowledgeable spectator the merits or weaknesses of this or that commander, I would again
advocate the filtering process - how did the soldier I am see this man, what were his
nicknames, how did his treatment of the rank and file differ from his predecessor? Was the
food better, punishment more frequent, marches more arduous, battles bloodier, etc.?
And the war's affect on friends and relatives back home, and the concommitant affect
on the soldier at the front (worry, leaves, dissertion) should be included.

Food, clothing and weaponry should be discussed, but should be the starting points
of a discussion that brings the period alive, and this is the thoughts and emotions of
the men and women of the time, on an absolutley personal level. How else is history
ever experienced?
My 2 cents worth.

[Union Navy]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Since there has been some discussion of Tilden and interpretation, perhaps a restatement of his 6 principles would be in order.

1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.
2. Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However, all interpretation includes information.
3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is to some degree teachable.
4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation.
5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole person rather than any phase.
6. (relates to interpretation for children, not applicable to the question at hand)
- Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, University of North Carolina Press, 1977

Some developments since Tilden wrote these include research that demonstrates the superiority of thematic presentations in getting visitors to remember important information. Sure, visitors oftem remember things from reenactments, but are these the things you would want them to remember? The ultimate goal is to have them take action - donate to preservation, get involved in local projects, join a unit, gain a new perspective, do research on thier own.

As has been stated before in this thread, explaining a selection of objects is not interpretation. People are primarily interested in other people. How did the soldiers and sailors use the objects? What were their lives like? What did they talk about with each other? What did they value? To what important questions were they seeking answers ? Good living historians (and good reenactors) know these things and can relate them in a memorable way.

The job of the interpreter, according to Tilden, is "to provoke, relate and reveal." How you say it is at least as important as what you say. Everyone who hears you will get something different out of your presentation, and you have little control over the information after it enters their brain. Extracting meanings from information and artifacts is a very personal journey. Enjoy the questions - some you may seek answers to together, others your listeners may seek answers to on their own. Give them the tools they need to frame their own questions and seek their own answers.

So much for glittering generalities. You have two sets of cultures to talk about - the originals, and the reenactors. Comparing and contrasting the cultures might prove fruitful, since you are familiar with both. You culd pick a series of events and explain how members of each culture would react - adverse weather, injury, coping with camp boredom, spending money, sore feet, bad food, politics, religion, all those fun subjects. This would give listeners an idea of the differences between the cultures, and the limitations inherent in using reeanctment as living history.

Most of all, have fun. If you do, they will.

[csuniforms]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Hello, Great topic! Lots of interesting intellectual dictums.

My contribution to this discussion is after attending several of these presentations which ones do you remeber as the best!! What made them the best or the most enjoyable or memorable.? People talk constantly about Ed Bearrs and his presentations. Besides a knowledge of his subject the man is alive and expressive. He know how to talk to an audience.

The resulting glazed audience comes when you speak in a monotone and say a lot of "ahs" (I hate "Ahhhss"). The glaze also comes when the topic is to long or uninteresting. Who makes it interesting??? You do??

As to a talk on reenacting, You could do a history of reenacting, A history of Civil War reenacting, A history on the material culture, on the food, shoes, battles... on and on. You cant cover the entire subject in one talk-- As a speaker you have to pick a topic and give your audience at maximum three points of interest and pound on these.

I too have some real issues with living historians, reenactors, in general. I too get really upset when someone comes out and says, "Civil War guns were only good for 100 yards," or "the Confederates wore any kind of uniform, it is OK"!!! -- Unfortunatley we just cant knock them in the head right there or scream out, "you dont know what the heck your talking about moron so shut up, your giving all of us a bad name here."

Tom Arliskas
Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown
csuniforms

[Pvt_Jack_Bauer]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

this almost seems like this is turning out to be some type of therapeutic thread where we all come to vent our anger and frustration, haha...just let it all out (believe me I am guilty as well)

[sauguszouave]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

The verb interpret and the noun interpretation have multiple meanings. One sense applies to educational presentations or re-enactments. While I do educational presentations as a re-enactor, I also do "interpretation" in a different sense: I use re-enacting as a research tool.

There are many kinds of documentary evidence that make more sense to the researcher if you actually try to perform the actions described in the documents. The classic example of this kind of documentary evidence are "how to" books. Specifically, I've used this methodology in three different areas of study: medieval fencing, vintage dance, and 19th-century infantry drill. For example, Dr. Forgeng at the Higgins Armory Museum has recently published translations of several medieval and renaissance German fencing manuals. As part of his research, a group of us worked through practicing the techniques described in the manuals. Insights gained from "re-enacting" the descriptions in the original sources provided invaluable insights into the meaning of the texts including the vocabulary and taxonomy of the language used as well as the iconography of the illustrations.

Similarly, actually dancing the social dances of the 19th century points out things in the dance manuals that would be completely missed by only reading them.

Anyone who has tried to execute ACW infantry drill knows that the exercise shows you things about the drill manuals. For example, how many of you know that three right faces doesn't put your group of fours in the same order as a left face? I didn't know it myself until I tried to do it. The manuals explain it, but the explanation made no sense to me until I saw it with my own eyes. Now I also understand why several officers at the time recommended against facing by the flank from an about face.

In that sense I "interpret" historical documents when I come up with a "particular adaptation or version of a work." Also, my "interpretation" may appear as a journal article rather than a re-enactment.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[Crag Rat]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Sirs, etc.

Who has the right to interpret history? We all do based on our own experiences. I have seen this in practice on military deployments where my own recollection of "fact" differs from that of the person sitting not three feet away. If two people in a HMMWV cannot agree on the truth, how can we decry the various interpretations of events that occured 140 years ago?

If asked about reenacting, I always turn the question around. Kevin, why do people become engineers? There is no one answer. Ask your audience to consider the diversity in their own field, then demonstrate how disparate the hobby truly is. Folks can quickly grasp that their profession is not homogenic and will swiftly understand the same about reenacting. While we might all be travelling in the same direction, we all certainly do start off the same, nor do we end up at the same destination.

Sincerely,

William M. Carraway
No Person of Consequence

[Sgt Rob ODG]

Re: "Historical Interpretation by Reenactors"

Kevin,
A young woman from England is currently writing a graduate thesis on this very point. She attended several events over the last two years and spent a good deal of time at 1st Manassas doing interviews with many reenactors. She has promised to share her findings when her paper is submited. If I get a copy, I will share her observations with you.
Her questions addressed both issues related to the presentation of history (such as, determining accuracy of an impression/interpretation, the place given to 1st person impressions, goals of the reenactor) and personal issues (personal motivation, choice of "sides," background, and the reenactor's "real life."). Those who spoke with her were impressed by her knowledge of reenacting (she learned about the hobby from Deb Pomerantz of NJ - a progressive civilian who does a Southern impression) and the depth of her questioning. She conducted all interviews in correct period attire.
Rob Stevenson
Chesapeake Volunteer Guard