Looking Ahead to Improvement

[Federal Bummer]

Re: Looking Ahead to Improvement

Some of the best leaders I’ve seen at events were actually corporals and lowly privates. They are the ones who know and act their part, check on others, spend time working with the less experienced, keep their eye on those with medical conditions, freely give their blanket or overcoat to someone in need or organize and lead work details while others lounge around. In a nutshell they take the initiative to get things done WITHOUT being asked or told to do so. They always show up prepared, in the proper kit, with a good attitude and a clean weapon. These are the guys that make the best sergeants, orderlies, sergeant majors and officers. To me THAT should be one’s foundation before they even start delving into platoon, company, battalion or skirmish drill.

Eric I'm with you on this one.

Continuing with leadership in the field, I've always been a big fan of surrounding yourself with those who are more knowledgable and better leaders than yourself. Learn from them and apply the knowledge in which you learn.

As for this thread, in general, I think it would help greatly if everyone set goals for themselves at every event and season. Personally, I like to learn something new at each event.

Case In point, at Outpost, Jim Moffet was nice enough to explain some of the complex battalion movements, using candles, that I had only read in Casey's and have never seen them done. This put a lot of those fancy manual words into perspective.

My personal goal for this winter is get the battlion bugles calls down.

I kinda like the old term "Progressive Living Historian" rather than Campaigner or Hardcore. The problem is some may have stopped progressing in the three fields Kevin has coined (Man,Methods,Materials). Learn something new before and at every event in all of these fields and we cannot help to get better at the hobby.

[BrianHicks]

Re: Looking Ahead to Improvement

Kevin,

Good thread!

On this point, I think there would be benefit to scheduling an event solely to work on these items. Perhaps a battalion level drill weekend with separate schools for NCOs and Officers, moving on to company-level drills, then culminating with a battalion drill.

Many groups these days operate using a "pool" of interested and/or qualified folks to serve as officers and NCOs. This is a great way to spread the burden of leadership around, build a pool of experience, and prevent "eternal colonels" and "captains for life" so prevalent in the mainstream. However, I am not sure how often these folks have the opportunity to be schooled in proper drill, etc. For example, how many folks out there who portray a sergeant really understand how to ensure that they are walking in a straight line and why doing so is a valuable skill?

Hmmmm.. amazing how many of us think alike.

Mister Craddock and I had a vision at about this time last year, in which we would hold a 'School of the Officer' type event. Now that outpost has come and gone, we are once again thinking of doing such a thing. We are looking at perhaps Fort Hill in Frankfurt, Ky. and limiting it to no more than about 20 individuals.

Will this ever happen? We hope so, and we are working on it.

There are other groups that have had successful School of the Officer/NCO weekends for there respective units, what we were leaning towards is such a School weekend for the independent types, such as we often see filling the ranks at WIG events.

We'll keep you informed if this idea ferments into reality.

[PvtShot]

Re: Looking Ahead to Improvement

I would like to see more uniformity among the enlisted men at some events, especially on the Federal side. When we are to portray a specific unit, I think that everyone should make the extra effort to acquire the gear that the originals were actually issued, especially for something like Outpost III.

I know this doesnt apply to everyone, but I see alot of "Generic Immpressions" for us Federals at specific events. I realize that everyone may not have a Frock coat, or state issue jacket, or that you'll never see a whole group with Sack coats made of the same material, but surely we can try to wear our gear in the same manner or try to all have the same head covering at least. I know that we all must have a double-bag knapsack, that we can all pack the same way to get a more "uniform look" especially for an early war scenario. I still see canteens with an indigo or light blue wool coverings sometimes and it makes me sad:(.

I don't know if I'm just spinning my wheels but, what I would give to see just twenty nappy dudes with that "just issued" look! Maybe it's one of those "Wish in one hand things..."

Regards,
Eliot Toscano
The Buckras

SCAR/SRR

[SCTiger]

Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

I would request that anyone reading my post, will read everything, I am offering an idea on how to improve the models we use for "first person." Although some purists may not like my ideas, take a minute to look through my explanations, before flaming.

I would also request that people with actual experience in doing first person for more than 24 hours and not a few minutes, respond to the thread, if you don't have that experience then limit your comments to direct questions. I want less "opinion" and more actual field experience related to this. (Something we should do with many threads.)

First Person a PEC model

Most of you have in your kit a piece of equipment that you can't do without at events, it's either a shirt, a favorite pair of shoes, a canteen, blanket, a mucket, whatever. You check the event standards and if it's not on the "banned" list and it's considered (PEC) Period, Everyday and Correct, you bring it. The favorite piece of gear is familiar, it belongs to the Civil War era, it could be an original piece of equipment and it helps to get you in that mood. Your at the event and you have your game face on. Everything in regards to gear is correct, your comrades are engaged in the activites and the event setting is with very few modern distractions, what's still modern? It's you.

THE OLD WAY;

Representing an actual person from the muster rolls. At many times during past events, re-enactors would pick a name of the rolls of the unit being depicted at the event and through research would build a persona around this "actual" veteran that existed 150 years ago. The representing of an actual is accurate, but only in their name and what scant information you know from the census, newspapers and official records.

If you are lucky, you would find actual letters of the soldier, a diary or a family history. Too often, I would end with a name and then build a somewhat accurate representation around that person. I will now list the drawbacks to this model:

1. You are limited by the actual history of the person. If they were a member of the 13th North Carolina for example , then that name is only useful for that unit, if they died in 1862, so does that name, there is no going forward with the impression to 1863-65.

2. You have no clue as to their real personality, read all the written records you want and rarely will you get the actual information on their personality exist. Was this person honorable? Religious? A hero? A Coward? In other words how well would people "know" you today from your paper trail? We may know all the demographics, but rarely do we know the person. So how can we pretend to be that person?

3. I know me, but do you know me? If we switch events, units and personas at every other events, you may be able to become familiar with the "new you" but, no one else will. You will have to reintroduce yourself and re-familiarize everyone with your character. One event you are Pvt. Jone, the next Corporal Thrasher, then Pvt. Willis.
You have more personalities than a psychotic and everyone is confused. The actual truth, ACW veterans knew everything about each other, their families, politics, favorite foods, medical ailments, fighting ability, social standing and the list goes on.
Summation: Switching impressions and names at every event is highly confusing.

4. You may have a tough time finding people that fit you, you aren't 18, you aren't 5'9" and 145 lbs, you don't have dark hair.

5. They earned their name, you didn't. You could never fill their shoes.

A 19th Century Version of Me

Next I tried being a 19th Century of "me". Greg Deese was Union, he was a Confederate, he was pro-slavery, he was anti-slavery. I was everything 19th century and now people knew me. Except there was drawbacks:

1. One of the reason I like first person, is that it allows you to get away from "yourself." To actually experience being another person for 2-4 days, however; this is almost impossible if you are still yourself even a period accurate, correctly speaking 19th Century self. There you are. You were not there 150 years ago, unless you are reincarnated, and if that's true, then why are you doing this again? So you have the same old "modern" self trying to go back in time. I believe the one big reason we practice "first person" is to get away from our modern identity.

2. Hey you're that guy from the AC forum? Actually the people that never posts online, are the ones that can escape the other modern persona (save themselves), a.k.a. the internet campaigner. If you are famous for being such, then you know the problem. Most often people will state that you look nothing like your avatar and they are glad to put a name with a face. If you do pick a permanent alias to use, don't use it in your internet handles and nick names, You are really defeating the purpose and you have a made a 19th Century name into a 21st Century icon. Keep the name to yourself, and only use it when you are discussing the event personalities on specific, event related forums.

3. Too often our modern personas, lead to modern discussions, also people don't know when you are in your 19th or 21st Century modes. If you are not using the alias Using another name gives that "signal" that it's now "showtime", mentally to yourself and others. Greg Deese the infamous poster of the AC forum has ceased to exist. He is now Amos Jones (haven't picked that, just e. g.) Your dual personality is now alive. For some of you, dual personalities will be easy, don't worry I still think you're "good people".

A Possible Soulution

I propose that we build characters that are based on actual people but are portable and familiar within our community. Just like the trusty piece of PEC gear you take it almost everywhere. Only a few elements would change between events, such as place of residence, unit and perhaps political feelings. Although there are strong sentiments on both sides for and against every issue. I would build a fictional name that could be common to the era. Not too extravagant or outrageous, but convincing. "Philip Adams", "Josiah Brown", "Andrew Greene" etc.. Looking through the many muster rolls and histories, chances are that you have noticed the same name over and over for both North and South units. At times it has been frustrating to researchers to find the real "Amos Johnson" even entire families would share the same name.

One can build a common core persona or PEC First Person around these elements:

name
occupation
age
family setting (married, single, four brothers, orphan etc.)
favorite activities
religion
skills, interests, hobbies
military experience: old soldier, veteran, just enlisted, conscript or volunteer.
personality aspects & character traits: Moody, mean, talkative, honest, drunkard, gambler, etc.
social background: rich, poor, share cropper, immigrant, native,
personal stories

Some demographics and unit history would change with each event, but it beats re-inventing yourself every six months!

(Notice, please exclude any interpretation of "famous" people that could be needed for an event, if they are represented, I would hope it would be in the most respectful and accurate form possible, with very little embellishment.)

In my opinion, the more distant you are from your modern personality, the easier it will be to develop a better, alternate persona. It's not the modern or internet "you" that everyone knows, however; everyone will know this character over time. Just like the people in the 19th centuryy. It will also force to people, especially the folks in your mess or unit to learn something about you. Do an honest assessment of the modern people in your unit today, how well do you know them? Even their modern lives?

Knowing these personas will also give you more to talk about around the campfire or in the field. Keeping the same personality framework will allow other re-enactors to more easily interact in first person mode and avoid the modern references.

I know this idea might offend the purists that wants to use the actual names, but there is no way to represent those real people with a great deal of accuracy. It may seem farby, but so is injecting your own personality on top of a real person that you don't really know. We also don't have the time or proper settings to re-learn theses aliases every six months. This causes a great deal of frustration and leads people to using their modern names and personalities, when you are "stuck on yourself", you are less likely to explore other possibilities and your first person growth is stunted. After all, you already know who you are so, there is no motivation to explore 19th century ideas, mindsets and thoughts.

In conclusion, the composite-PEC first person also give a more "interactive" experience to your fellow re-enactors and also allows the user to escape their own mindsets and sets a tone that allows for the building of character development and more interesting scenarios. Compare this to the unknown silent "Bob" model that knows everything about themselves and did a outstanding job researching their persona, however; he or she is almost unknown, because they keep changing. The internet and modern personality is also severe damper to first person interaction. Over time we could recognize and relate to these "field" impressions. Some people already have them and are unaware of their reputations. They just need a new name.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

Well said, Greg. I, like many people I've come in contact with a some of the better events, can and will do first person, but it doesn't exactly come naturally. I tend to "over research" when it comes to details, or I have done like you and made a 19th century me from what I know best. I think you've given us another perspective on first person that may just enable more of us to give it a better go at events and provide meaningful, unhokey conversation amongst ourselves.

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

Whom does it benefit when no one is around other than a few other reenactors?

[flattop32355]

Re: Looking Ahead to Improvement

Learn the bugle calls.

[D Harrelson]

Re: Looking Ahead to Improvement

As I recall School of the Campaigner was done in the late '90's by the Rowdy Pards... or as some here call them the Pouty Farbs. A good second option would be spending a weekend with the Boy Scouts as most of these skills could be learned there quickly. They'd love a funny looking man in a weird costume tracking along. Sad to say, but we've become a nation of HDTV NFL/NBA softies. Most of these would have been second nature in the '50's and '60's

Donald Lewis Harrelson
Who would still rather be called D Harrelson
Still using cedar twigs

[billmatt04]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

This is a very interesting question, and is a topic that has come up time and again in both the reenacting world and that of professional living history sites and museums. I currently work at a living history site which employs first-person as its major mode of interpretation, and the opportunities and limitations mentioned above are as true there as on the reenactment field. I would like to make a few comments and suggestions and will welcome any additional comments or questions. Most of my observations come from working in a museum, so please be aware that my writing will probably slant more toward educational interpretation as opposed to strictly reenactor-on-reenactor interaction.

First-person is the most difficult method of historical interpretation - it takes a tremendous amount of research and skill on the part of the interpreter/reenactor to accomplish successfully. Doing true first-person means that you do not break "character" regardless of questions/comments from the public or other reenactors. When it is done correctly it can be an immensly enjoyable experience for all those involved, providing some truly magical moments.

However, as mentioned before, the method is not without inherent flaws. Obviously, we cannot completely replicate in a physical way the past or individuals from the past, regardless of the amount of research undertaken. In the same vein, reenactors can never put themselves in a 100% accurate nineteenth-century mindset - as historians have said, "the past is a foriegn country" which we can never truly revisit or recapture (incidentally, this is why I refuse to use the term "authentic" when speaking of living history, be it regarding clothing and equipment or an interpretation). Also, if the spectator or reenactor you are conversing with is unwilling or unable to embrace that willing suspension of disbelief and "buy in" to what you are doing your interpretation will fall flat and be ineffective.

If you are interpreting an actual person from the past, the task is even harder. In my unit I portray a man about whom I have little information, especially regarding his life in the pre-war years. How can I present him accurately when I have so little to go off of? The hard truth is, I can't. This is the same difficulty my museum encounters. There we portray members of the extended Lincoln family, individuals about whom we have incomplete information about. Because of this lack of detail, our interpretation runs the risk of being shallow and not doing justice to those individuals.

One way to mitigate these difficulties is to fabricate an individual who is based on people from the past, but is in fact ficticious. If you are going to use first-person interpretation I truly believe this is the best way to approach it because you don't run into the problems inherent in portraying an actual person. I like the suggestions made in the original post about creating a flexible persona which can suit different interpretive opportunities. If using first-person is part of what stokes the fire in your belly at reenactments, then by all means use it. Just remember that it is not necessarily the most effective way to educate the visiting public. Between reenactors, however, it can help complete the illusion of having stepped back in time and if you have a committed group who will all participate it can be a magical experience. After all, this is why many of us reenactors put so much time and effort into our hobby.

In my own opinion, the most effective way to interact with the public at reenactments is to use the third-person method (where you are yourself and talk about the war in the past tense). This way you can help educate the public by allowing them to make comparisons between the past and today and can clearly answer questions in a way that people can grasp much more easily.

Well, I think I have rambled on enough. I really hope this thread generates a lot of good discussion, because I believe reenacting and living history have a tremendous opportunity and obligation to reach out and inform, regardless of the method.

Best,

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Looking Ahead to Improvement

I believe there's a tendency lately to de-emphasize historical research and disseminating it to participants. If that supposition is correct, it's indeed a disturbing one that I believe should be changed.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure if I know just what you mean. What did you see in the past that you're not seeing now?

Thanks!

[Slouch]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

The question was asked "what good does first person do when there are only a few reenactors around you" or something to that effect. Certainly, a big part of this hobby is teaching people about the Civil War. But, at least for me, the biggest part is teaching myself about the Civil War. Sitting around a camp fire speaking and acting in first person with your pards is a great experience.

I believe that if you are good at the first person thing, it doesnt matter if you are John Smith of the 2nd Virginia or if you are just you in 19th century form.

My pards and I do alot of first person. We've been doing it so long we tend to be in first person all the time without really trying, which makes it all the more "real".

My problem with assuming a different identity is that everyone around you know you as Dave, not John. For me, this would stick in my head the whole time and make the first person activity feel more like a play than real life.

Whenever possibly, the fellows in my group use their real-life occupations for first person activites. We have school teachers, carpenters, etc. We also have a real life scientist, a park ranger, etc, so those folks have to come up with a different idea.

My group portrays several different units, depending on the event. I try to pick an occupation that was typical for the men of that unit. Occupations vary depending on where the unit was organized. The most important thing to do is to research that occupation. If you pick a farmer, learn 19th century farming lingo, technology, etc. Know how many acres you have, what crops you grow, animals, etc.

Just remember one thing about first person; more times than not, you have been with your pards for a long time. You may have known some of them all your life. You do not have to go through the whole "what did you do before the war" discussions at every event. Last weekend at a Nov 63 event we did first person all night and this topic never came up.

As far as interaction with the public goes, I agree that first person does not work very well. People dont want to hear fake accents. They want to ask you about your musket, clothes, and rations, which is a difficult thing to answer in first person. My feeling is this; answer in first person, they consider you a role-player. Answer in third person, they consider you a historian. They will walk away with a better understanding of Civil War history from the historian.

[Federal Bummer]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

Just remember one thing about first person; more times than not, you have been with your pards for a long time. You may have known some of them all your life. You do not have to go through the whole "what did you do before the war" discussions at every event. Last weekend at a Nov 63 event we did first person all night and this topic never came up.

Amen on this one. While I've not heard this at an event in awhile, I'm always waiting for it pop out of someones mouth.

If you never seen what Mess #1 does it's worth taking a look

http://www.mess1.homestead.com/FirstPerson.html

[ephraim_zook]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

Whom does it benefit when no one is around other than a few other reenactors?

It benefits you and the few other reenactors. If you view a reenactment as a performance, where you are in character on stage for a few minutes for the public, then in the wings as your modern self the rest of the time, you are missing, in my humble opinion, the whole purpose of the exercise.

While at an event I want to experience the 19th century as much as possible, and if you as my file mate are not in 19th century mode, you will spoil my experience -- as would I to you if the roles were reversed.

Ron Myzie

[Cfarrell]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

Whom does it benefit when no one is around other than a few other reenactors?

Really...what good dose it do to pay thousands of dollars on gear, gas, and who knows what else just to travel hundreds of miles to events to talk about the latest college football scores or cars or the NASA space station or what ever?:D

Not to take away from this discussion as I believe its needed and it would be nice if we could come up with a general conclusion to the subject...maybe even a general outline of how to build a first person persona.

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Portable First Persson- Rethinking the model

Really this is a 19th century experiment in role-playing. Personally I like and endorse it. Correctly you point out that for many original soldiers there simply isn't much documented information, and getting at it is difficult for an event of a weekend's duration.
I would recommend a few things to guide you: While research of any kind into 19th century culture is going to enrich your character, a lot of what you research is never going to surface in the final product. (The same phenomenon occurs in writing sermons. You find some things which are, to you, fascinating, but you just can't work them into the final product. Let 'em go.) What you're doing is enhancing your attitudes and motivations, from an acting standpoint. I believe that if something in your character development can't be demonstrated with the way you wear your uniform and gear, things you say and do, or special things you take to the field with you, then ultimately they are irrelevant. I offer a few examples from the way I approach my "character:"
I am ordained clergy in real life, and this profession existed in virtually the same form as it does today. Clergy in the North were almost universally abolishionist in character, the "liberals" of the day. I don't have any problem adopting this persona. In addition, since we have adopted transracially, I label myself deliberately as a "black republican" and advocate a position of racial equality which I know to be the cutting edge of race relations at the time. Still, people often stop and pause over a time when this was really "out there."
I like card and board games. I carry a checker board and play checkers with anyone who will - I rarely lose. Card-playing was, I realize, morally shady, shall we say, so that becomes one of my little vices.
I have a fondness for science-fiction and fantasy. So I read Poe. A lot. I have a volume of Poe which has a good period look and I don't mind it getting beat up in my pack. Someone of my obvious education would read and value reading material.
I am, personally, careful about my dress. Where I live may be a wreck, but I look good. So I try to wear my uniform as neatly, and correctly as I know how. I learned to shave with a straight razor so that, time allowing, I can freshen up my face. I'm also mildly nerdy (how many of us aren't?) so I wear a pair of glasses with a piece of wire replacing one bow and string wrapped around the nosepiece to make them more comfortable (they bite my nose.)
These things are easy and natural for me to do reenacting, because they rise out of my personality. Am I any one Civil War soldier? No. Am I exactly a 19th century version of myself? Well, not exactly. But the character I am I can maintain because he's already doing things I have an affinity and a competence at doing.