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.
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.
Comment