Reenacting's place in Academia

[garyknowz]

Greeting gentlemen!

I’ve been participating in Living History since the summer of 1993, and am a proud member of the original Lucky 13 Mess out of Southern California. In that time, I have seen some good impressions and many bad impressions. I am currently doing some work with the University of California, Davis to identify Civil War reenacting’s place in academia and it’s place in preserving Civil War memory. As the most progressive lot of reenactors that I know of, I wanted to get your opinion on the matter.

What, in your opinion, is the educational value of reenacting?

What are the corollaries of inaccurate impressions in educating our spectators?

How can we make the reenacting community a better tool for educating American children about the Civil War?


Feel free to add any additional thoughts on this matter. Thanks.

Cheers!
Gary Knowlton

[paulcalloway]

Relative to the educational value of reenacting - in my opinion, authentic reenacting is a equivalent to a graduate-level history-laboratory. Much like a living history farm or village, it provides us a chance to see what life was like for our forebearers, experience it at some level... and perhaps learn something along the way that the history book either didn't teach us or couldn't teach us. The history laboratory of reenacting takes abstract concepts like the effect of inclement weather on a body of troops and makes those concepts concrete.

I remember reading in a book of history, a number of years ago about a soldier that lost his shoe in the mud. I remember thinking, "oh, come on" ... that's impossible. Well, no it's not... I've since had my shoes sucked right off my feet by knee-deep mud. I've also seen a wind kick up and dry out that same field of mud in a matter of hours.

Relative to educating spectators - I have to admitt, I'm not really out there to educate anybody but myself. But when opportunites occur - those so-called "teachable moments" - I'm certainly willing to do my part in teaching and demonstrating to spectators. I think, in these teachable moments, blatant innaccuracies reinforce stereotypes. They are interference. If you're explaining to a child how you cook your daily rations - you can bet he's doing his dead-level best to imagine himself doing that very thing... well, until that Twix candybar falls out of your haversack and then that teachable moment is gone.

We've talked here before about creating some sort of portal for school children to utilize our resources. I know of at least one Florida-based advanced level middle school history program that uses our site as a resource tool. Civil War school days and classroom presentations are certainly valuable but they are not aimed at the one earnest child who wants to immerse himself in the Civil War. Using tools like youtube, I think there's a lot we could do if we focused our resources.

[jake.koch]

Technically, living history falls under the domain of public history. Reenacting aside, there are many in the world of academics that do not believe public history to be a worthy pursuit and form of education, much less reenacting I am sure. I don't agree with that myself, but after one year of grad school I know there are many that do.

To answer your questions, I think our education value is immense when used correctly. Everything is in interpretation. I think the worst thing we can do is ramble off a bunch of facts to an audience and expect the majority of them to take anything away. That is where interpretation comes in. We should focus in on a few key points to drive home depending on the scenario. Most importantly we need to find a way to make what we present relevant.
Relevance rather then name and date ramblings will hamper the sterotype about history being thought of as somthing boring. It will hopefully make history worthwhile, as well as giving a "connection" to the audience.

I think that the parallels of bad impressions are the "Jed Clampett" stereotype of Confederates as well as the thought that life must not have been that bad under a big A tent with a nice wooden chair to sit next to the fire in with a cooler within reach. With those types of impressions how is somebody to learn differences between now and then? I think the average child would walk away from those sights thinking thats how it really was.

In order to make reenacting a better educational tool, I believe that education has to go hand -in-hand with interpretation. We need to be flexible with the topic as well as with the audience, you obviously talk to a six year old differently then you would to a sixty year old. I'm probably preaching to the choir with many of these ideas but hopefully there is somthing in there useful to you.

[pvtken]

I am an undergrad student at the University of Wisconsin and have had numerous conversations with professors, mentors and friends about reenacting... How is reenacting viewed by each of these categories of people? What are the good and bad aspects of reenacting? Does being a Confederate in a northern area or a Yank in a southern area affect how people view you and your interpretation. Here is my, well, "interpretation" on reenacting's place in academia:

I've talked with a few of my American History professors. One of them views reenactors as a group of people who cannot leave the issues of the Civil War alone. Some of them are still full of hate and cannot live without reliving that critical time in American History when hate was beginning to be reduced. He doesn't see why reenactors do what they do, because they do not fully understand the significance of the events of the time.

Another professor (who is a lot more distinguished) views reenacting as a great thing. He says that reenactors provide another perspective on the War Between the States. "Office historians," professors, and doctorate level authors know the war inside and out, but do not always know the war on a personal level; a level congruent to diary and journal interpretations and first person studies on living on a day to day basis.

Reenactors are historians just as professors, museum curators, and National Park Service interpreters are. The difference is that most reenactors don't have their doctorate in this era of American History. I personally believe that knowing where one's knowledge starts and ends (on account of both reenactors and doctorate level historians) leads to the most accurate and efficient analysis and interpretation of the Civil War.

For example, I've heard many reenactors make outrageous remarks like, "X would have happened as a result of Y, but because Y happened this way, Z ultimately was the result." From their statements, it is clear they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the big picture. I believe that these kinds of remarks should be left to those who study the era; those nationally respected individuals who have their doctorate. However, I've also heard scholars state blatent inaccuracies such as, "Confederate uniforms were made of 100% cotton because the south was the king of cotton agriculture." It makes sense to someone working in an office writing a book about Civil War Economics, right? Right. Is it right though? No. A reenactor would be the first one to tell you that wool was the primary material in uniforms (depending on the impression of course).

Knowing that you can educate the public or youth of the nation on a typical soldier's life, a typical day in the Army or Navy, or a certain event that happened in your "first person's" life while letting scholars answer bigger questions of "What Ifs" or the historical significance of X event" can lead to the greatest understanding of the American Civil War.

As a footnote, I would like to make known that I'm not saying reenactors can't analyze the war. They can, and should! It only educates them further. What I am saying is that making generalizations based SOLELY on your impression or the experiences that you have had as a reenactor should be avoided. By all means let your reenacting experience help you further your Civil War knowledge!

I hope this helps you with your search for knowledge and opinions. Please post your findings or your final draft so we can read it! (If you are willing of course. I understand if not.)

Sincerely,
Ken Huxtable

[James Brenner]

I had an Ohio anthropology professor at Kent State University who learned how to knap flint so that he could better teach his students about pre-historic life. Is that re-enacting? I suspect that most academics dismiss reenacting for the same reasons most college history departments dismiss military history as a discipline: to them, it's little more than campaigns and battles with little relevance to "true history". As a result, reenactors are little more than play actors with nothing of consequence to contribute to the educational process. There's a part of me that also thinks that some colleges believe that if the school offers a course in military history, they are somehow condoning war - sort of like ROTC on a certain Ivy League campus. The good news is that a few departments are beginning to offer courses that link military history into social history, political history, etc. In progressive schools like that, a good reenactor is very valuable - similar to a Viet Nam vet describing his experience in the Ia Drang valley. Unfortunately, there's no way to vett these erstwhile educators. Until there is, reenactors will be an underused resource.

[OldKingCrow]

As a consumer of Living Histories and events....

FWIW - I learned more listening to Misters Lee White and Daryl Black on Snodgrass Hill than a whole heap of book readin'. Short of a good reenactment of the event (which I have never done) their interpretation really provided a tangible feel for my ancestor's probable experience on the same soil.

You, or at least I, cant always get that from a book.

[Arch Campbell]

Unfortunately, I don't think living history will ever have a place at the academic table. Whe I was earning my BA in History from the University of Northern Iowa in the early 90s, I would never have been caught dead admitting to one of my professors that I was involved in reenacting- and no, its not because I was mainstream then (point of fact, I was a 'Sill at the time.) It was because what THEY knew of WAS mainstream reenacting- which they regarded as worse than forgetting the past (and I was, and am, inclined to agree.) It sounds, from some of the examples above, that maybe that hardline has softened a bit over the ensuing years, but I doubt by much.

Maybe I'm old and jaded, but I haven't had a "period rush" in at least a decade. I don't expect to have them, nor do I particularly look. I love doing first person, but not because I expect to be "transported," rather because I enjoy the challenge of it, and the concentration required. These days it isn't immersion events that I look forward to the most, it is living histories on actual battlefields. Old and decrepit as I now am at 38, I guess I enjoy teaching more than doing.

[Rear Guard]

My 2 cents worth........I think our value to the academic world as Civil War reenactors lies with our own quest for deeper understanding of the true experience and feelings of the Civil War soldier.....and sharing that with the public. In our attempt to fully comprehend, we "become" those men of long ago. By so doing, I feel that we keep alive the discussions of the battles, the debates, and yes, even at times question the historical accounts and so called "facts" with our newfound practical knowledge gained through our experiences as soldier reenactors. Over the years, I have found many inaccuracies and misconceptions in published books on the Civil War. These same books are read by academia. I think reenactors may sometimes serve as a reality check.

[pvtken]

I would have to somewhat agree with you that reenactors provide a reality check for history scholars. I would argue that scholars also provide a reality check for reenactors. It is an unofficial system of checks and balances, one that seems to be working during the current age.

A couple other points. I do not believe that military history courses are not offered at many schools around the country because of "looking bad" in the public eye. Wisconsin in particular offers a course called American Military History. Plus, Wisconsin doesn't really care what other people think of it. They were the first to embrace other significant ideas which spread throughout the country. I'm drifting from the ACW now, so I will not say anything more.

Mr. Brenner, with all due respect, I disagree with you that many professors dismiss military history as not being true history. In a recent course I took (American History - Civil War to present), my professor stated, "To understand America's Wars is to understand American history," and it makes sense. This could be restated as "Understanding military history is understanding social history." Think about all the major wars America has participated in. You automatically associate any given war to American society at the time and how the two "interacted."

Another way to think about this issue is this. Reenactors will come into contact with many more impressionable people than scholars ever will. Reenactors have higher numbers and are actively looking for the average person in whom to inspire a furthered study of history. Scholars are dealing almost exclusively with academic people who have already qualified for their participation in academia and are generally less impressionable.

I hope these arguments are clear enough. If I had more time I would trim the fat and make it even more clear and concise. Feel free to e-mail me or message me if you would like to debate/discuss futher!

Ken, please sign your name to every post. Thanks! The Mod Staff

My apologies.

-Ken Huxtable

[davidf]

Well, before I put my 2 cents in, let me just say that I am a reenactor who is going to Gettysburg college, and just got through his first year. I was a reenactor before I went to Gettysburg as well, and was with a more "hardcore" group for 4 years. The previous is demonstrating what my bias is, something you learn to look at as a historian when looking at sources.

From what I have seen here at Gettysburg College, I think reenacting, or rather "Living History," has gained a foot hold on the achademic community, at least here in Gettysburg. But you must remember, Gettysburg is the Civil War enthusiest's equivalent to Cantebury, and that includes the living historians and reenactors.
Since November of last year, I have been studying the history of Civil War reenacting, and from that, I have found that presently, there are three classes of people who present Civil War in this public and visual way. There are "reenactors," the people who do this, but don't necessarily do this with any regard for reproducing the look of the soldier to a good standard, and not necessarily for eduction. Often the goals of these guys are more often trying to meet personal needs of some sort. I often see "powder burners" in this group, as well has the "Gone with the Wind" group here as well.
Then you have your "living historians" who concentrate more on reproducing the look of the soldier to a good standard (like, proper wool and patterns and not some blue wool suit put together so modern manufacturers could crank them out cheap) and often have the goal of educating the public or preservation of land/the memory of the war.
Finally, you have "recreationists," those guys who try to recreate the war to the fullest extent they can, without actually suffering from diseases and shooting bullets at other people. They often look to try and recreate the feeling of what the soldier felt during the war. Often they recreate clothing as close as possible (sometimes beyond what others will see). Often the "hardcores" are bunched into this group.

Ultimately, I think you have to ask this question before I continue on: Is what "reenactors" "recreationists" and "living historians" a good thing that should be supported? I have seen some who say (note, here I am talking more about achedemic people's opinions) that the hobby we have here overall glorifies war and the past, which is a bad thing. Others say that it can be used as a way to promote political opinion, often negative. And others say that the hobby can be good in promoting things that the normal "indoors" historian, as I call them (I mean mainly those historians who went to college and aren't reenactors usually and often do things in the classroom or in books), aren't often good at presenting/don't have knowledge on. All three of the above things are right. Sometimes, the battles we do are really hokey and with the way death is portrayed, people just falling down, maybe does glorify war in a bad way. Also, there are some people who put on the wool uniforms of the Civil War at the same time as they make political statements, like on the Confederate flag issue. Finally, many of us in the hobby do point out things that historians normally wouldn't about the social and material culture.

For me, I support and am part of this hobby partially for the education and partially for the recreation. I think there are many who fall under two or even all three of the categories of people I stated above. I am definately in support of education of others through reenacting (in addition, we also support the development of social and material knowledge of the war), and to do that, I think we need to support recreationism to learn more. The only thing I will not support is the glorification of the war and use of it for political movements. While I will not stop others from romanticizing the war and etc (because I know I can't, and don't they have the rights to do what they want to?), I will not support it, and let them do what they do. Some say we should try and put a stop to it because it damages the correct view of the war. In my opinon, I think if we started cracking down on these guys, then the whole hobby will be regulated, and the freedom that made the hobby able to grow so large will be gone, and it will be hard for most of us to do the hobby. Ultimately, I think those who glorify the war are needed as well, because many of the people interested in Civil War in the general public often are aquainted with Civil War through these kind of people and forms of media (honestly, Gettysburg the movie probably got more people in contact with the Civil War than McPherson's book "Battlecry of Freedom" did in the general public). But, once in contact with the Civil War, they get drawn in, and out of them a portion progress forward to other levels of our hobby.

To bring this around, the achedemic community I think is starting to take in the reenactors more, because the old way of studying a few key figures and events has now changed, and this hobby is allowing for another way to study the war. I think they mainly embrace the "Living Historian" types (though, I bet you less than half of those in the achedemic community could pick out a historically accurate impression in terms of items being worn/used from a historically innacurate one). Here is a sign of change: The National Park Service has special officers who are just blackpowder experts and mainly deal/handle "living historians," making sure what they do is safe. Though, I must also note that they do not have battles, pointing guns at apposing sides, or "taking hits" allowed on NPS property due to they do not consider it honorable to the men who fought, nor beneficial to education. For me, I woudl have to somewhat agree with them. For me, I see battle recreation best used for those of us who want to test our skills in civil war era battlefield strategy, or who want to recreate how loud or how confusing a battlefield was. Beyond that, I think having a live firing of muskets and hearing the wizz of bullets and then hitting clay targets has more educational value and leaves a deeper impression upon someone's mind than a battle reenactment.

Does that sort of help you?

[Vicksburg Dave]

I am a professor and a public historian, and most of my academic colleagues think reenactors are at best eccentric over grown dungeons and dragons types (progressives) and at worst just plain goofy (mainstreamers). If Paul Calloway's statement, "I'm not really out there to educate anybody but myself" is the norm for most reenactors, then the hobby really does not deserve much attention from academia, for academia is about dissemination of knowledge. Fortunately, he qualified his statement by declaring his willingness to use it as a teaching tool when the opportunity arises.
In contrast to reenacting, (I distinguish between the two manifestations of our hobby) living history is a means to an end: to teach others about history. To reenact for ones own personal gratification is fine, but to characterize reenacting as some world changing pedagogy is akin to comparing masturbation to procreation, or writing a book but not letting anyone else read it. I agree with Paul about using living history as a learning lab, particularly for students considering a career in public history. If you go to work at a state park, national park, or museum, at some point you are going to be asked to don period clothing, (or as in the case of an aquaintance of mine--a squirrel costume, lol) or deal with folks in period clothing, and you should know basic theory and practices or else you are just donning a costume. I have proposed such courses and have been shot down every time.
When I put my public historian hat on, the bottom line with living history is fulfilling the mission of the site, to educate visitors about the events that occurred there and to make them care about what happened. The current fetish over uniforms, buttonholes, and fabrics means little if the person wearing the uniform does not provide intelligent interpretation to the visitor. If that was the sum total of what we wanted to convey to visitors then we could simply put some of our original uniforms on a mannequin and pipe an audio recording to the visitors. Effective living history means interaction with the audience!
Academia is unlikely to change its opinion of reenacting and living history, especially when it relates to the Civil War. Academics tend look down on NPS and state park historians; and to be a Civil War historian in academia is to be considered among the lowest of the low. The general opinion is that the Civil War has been overstudied, that everything that should be known about the war is already known, and that most people majoring in the Civil War, along with Civil War buffs, are of defective intellect.
The question members of this forum could also be addressing is: How can you get academia and the general public to take you seriously? How do you dispell the "Confederates in the Attic" perceptions of the hobby?

[Horace]

What, in your opinion, is the educational value of reenacting?
I would say context. If a reenactor follows the methods of living of a civil war soldier, information emerges on its own that wasn't identifiable until doing it in real time-little things like throwing things you don't use out of your haversack because it's tiresome to grope around them in the dark for the things you actually do use, and big things like realizing that efficient maneuvering is important to personal survival.
A reenactor who has a handle on the nuances is best equipped to translate the experience. The same holds true of course for the civilian aspect.

What are the corollaries of inaccurate impressions in educating our spectators?
Same answer, more or less. Inaccurate or shallow information just reinforces the skewed perceptions of the period and twists them further-another coat of shellac on a turd.
Bad impressions seem to rely on theatrics, and a spectator is probably more attracted to the guys with half a pound of brass and an ostrich feather on their hats than the people 100 feet away who look nondescript but are a representation of the truth.

How can we make the reenacting community a better tool for educating American children about the Civil War?
Go to the schools or bring the schools to us. Competing with vaudeville yahoos on their own ground is tough.
Cultivate the relationship with the NPS and other organizations that would host interpretive activities. My very first event was last year at the Lacy/Elwood house on the Wilderness battlefield. There was a top notch demonstration of drill and manouver by a 60 man company with an excellent interpretation to the crowd explaining what was happening and why, as well as an accurate medical demonstration, a knapsack inspection and a 'history walk' past various scenarios: pickets, prisoners, dressing station, etc. The park service representatives seemed to be impressed and interested in more such programs. I thought it was an excellent effort all around, and haven't seen anything half as good since.
Ironically, the reenactors at this powerful demonstration seemed to outnumber the spectators about 2 to 1. I see way more spectators at the "You surrender! No YOU surrender" powder burners out here in California.

[LibertyHallVols]

I think the hobby has educational or academic value, but I wouldn't want to overstate the significance of its role in education. I really value the input of professional historians here, especially on topics like this. In leiu of that, here's my amateur opinion* (given in no particular order): :tounge_sm

I think the hobby serves several functions:
1) Educating the participants (that's us): We learn by doing. We discover new ways of how "they" did it by trying ourselves. This could range from patching your trousers to cooking rations to keeping reasonable dry on a rainy night. Also, at almost every NPS event I've attended, the staff has provided a spectacular tour of the battlefield to the participants. (THANKS, FOLKS!!!)

2) Keeping a working knowledge and skills of the past alive: Can anyone think of ANY group that debates 150-year-old drill manual texts as vigorously as we do? Also, consider general knowledge of the 19th Century... ask any of your non-historian or non-living-historian friends to sing three verses of ANY Stephen Foster song.

3) Educating the public: Given the knowledge from 1 and 2, as well as studying the war in traditional (aka "indoors") ways, we *should* be able to portray Civil War era soldiers and civilians with a reasonable degree of accuracy and convey some valuable information to the general public (I won't go into the many caveats and pitfalls already mentioned... but there's a lot of 'em!). Education can take many forms:
- school presentations
- informal talks, Q&A, "bunk-o-junk" talks at events
- providing an attention-getter for a NPS ranger giving a tour
- yadda, yadda, yadda...

* John Wickett is not a licensed therapist, degreed historian, or a park ranger, but is a caring nurturer and a member of several twelve step programs. Opinions expressed are solely John Wickett's and do not reflect those of "The Authentic Campaigner", its staff, owners, operators, maids, ganitors, or secretaries. Your mileage may vary. Offer void where prohibited. Professional driver on a closed course, do not attempt. Objects in musket barrels can move much faster when the trigger is pulled, so don't look in there! In case you haven't realized this, John considers himself a hobbyist and doesn't take his role as a reenactor that seriously... at least as it relates to the actual sacrifices of Civil War (or any other war) veterans. The hobby is fun and he likes hangin' with his friends.

[tpallas]

Reenacting's impact on academia (which I would propose to change to the expansion of knowledge of the period) would most certainly be the research of minutiae which few other historians would seriously consider. Small details about Army life, design and construction of uniforms and equippage, etc. receive a cursory review by historians, if at all. So in as far as this is concerned, reenacting does contribute a small part to academia through the research of amateur historians.

Although it relates to WW2 reenacting, there is a book written by two professors called "The Myth of the Eastern Front." In my opinion it employs poor logic and reasoning, but does provide some insight into these two professor's opinions on reenacting.

[lambrew]

As a reenactor I strive for the best impression I can give because we are putting "a face with the name" so to speak. I see my role (outside of I love doing this hobby) as wetting other people's appetite to learn more. Reenactments of several diffrent periods I was dragged to as a kid got me fired up to learn more about what I had seen. Thus the link to academia. Being able to read about the Civil War while I had the visions of the reenactment in my head fleshed out the words I was reading.

If by my impression I intrest someone to learn more on their own, then I feel I have done my job well. I still go to Rev war, F&I, 1812 events as a spectator for the reason above, to put "a face with the name" to flesh out the words on paper.

Just my 2 cents, thanks for letting me ramble. John I love the disclaimer.:D

Respectfully....
Sean Collicott

[Rear Guard]

As one who has spent his career in advertising design, I would like to add that reenacting and reenactors are the "promoters" of the study and knowledge of the Civil War. We are visible and active to the public and increase awareness of the topic. We are walking "advertisements". Fundraising for endangered CW sites, interest in CW classes an seminars at universities, demand for books on the CW..... all benefit by our activities at large.

[Vicksburg Dave]

"Sherman's Horsemen" by David Evans is a good example of how reenacting can have a significant impact on an academic scholar's understanding of the war. Evans spent several months with a cav unit while researching the book, and it shows. Lots of details, such as sights, sounds, and smells, that would have escaped most historians are included in his descriptions cavalry life during the Atlanta campaign.

D

[ajroscoe]

I am an undergrad at the University of Michigan, where I study American History. Eventually, I hope to become an historian full-time. I feel that reenacting is a crucial part of understanding history. I've read books, diaries, and letters, seen pictures, paintings, etchings and maps, and walked battlefields. All that is important for understanding the war, especially the bigger picture, how the war unfolded, how campaigns progressed, and how battles were fought. But part of the war that must be understood is how life was for the common soldier. Understand them helps to understand the men who led them. Having carried a pack on a hot day on a dusty road, I can understand all the more fully why the men of the First Division, First Corps loved James Wadsworth for pulling officer's bags off the division ambulances so men could put their packs in them during the Gettysburg Campaign. I think the real place of reenacting in academia is helping to create a sharper image of the war for those who try to explain the war. Personally, when I sit down to write something on the war, I am glad I can relate to the men who fought in it, for I know it will make me a better historian.

[Micah Trent]

We've talked here before about creating some sort of portal for school children to utilize our resources.

Calloway and I discussed in a PM a while back about possibly setting up some sort of folder in the future for school children. There is a teacher here in Hardin County in Kentucky who uses this very site as a tool for his students when they get to their chapters on the Civil War. He has properly taught his students how to use the SEARCH function (which there are people on here who still have the slightest clue how to use that!:confused:) to find specific topics which they will be discussing in class.
The teacher isn't just looking to this site for answers, but he is looking to us, as living historians, for further knowledge and information which the school books do not teach. My hat goes off to him!

Do reenactor's have a place in academia? I think we're already there!

[Masich]

I think if you had asked this question (pre-internet, by the way) 30 years ago you would have gotten a very different response from academics--who generally dismissed re-enactors as grown men "playing war" and "dress up." Then as now, there are a wide range of motives for participating in living history, and what we get out of it and how much interest or applicability it has to academia depends on who is doing it. Today, many archaeologists, museum-based educators, and even university professors recognize the value of historical field work and re-creations.
As a young archaeologist I remember watching graduate students and their instructors knapping flint nodules to shape prehistoric flint tools. They counted the number of flint flakes that resulted from the manufacture of each tool and and recorded the size and shape of the flakes. This empirical study enabled them to identify prehistoric tool-making sites. Even when the stone tools themselves were not present, the archaeologist could tell you how many and what kind of tool (knife, chopper, spear, etc) had been made at the site and even how long it had taken to produce it.
When I did field work at 19th century military archaeological sites, the principal investigator was amazed that I could identify brass shoulder scale fragments, soldier-marked pewter canteen spouts, musket balls made into checkers, and other odd fragments of military history. Of course I could identify this stuff and even provide insights into its manufacture and use (so could any of you) because I was a reenactor. The same intimate knowledge of 19th century manufacturing, materials, customs, and regulations enabled me to "read artifacts" in a museum setting. I knew more about fabrics, dyes, and styles than most other curators (male or female), and when it came to understanding and interpreting "wear" and "use" marks on utensils, furniture, equipment, and arms I was the Sherlock Holmes of the museum. When I began writing books (though somewhat dry and scholarly, I admit), my living history experiences provided me with insights and first hand knowledge that enabled me (in concert with other historians and tribal elders) to understand Cheyenne ledger drawings rendered by warrior artists in 1865.
I truly believe that today the work of authentic reenactors is appreciated by used by many academics, so keep up the good work!

[Dusty Merritt]

As a poet and amateur historian I believe there's a great deal to be learned from reenactors. I'm working on a chapbook that focuses primarily on the experiences of common soldiers. The average Civil War book can only help me so much; most emphasize broad strategies and the decisions and lives of larger-than-life generals and politicians.

It's difficult to write about war while avoiding cliche and generalization--the real gold is in the so-called "minutiae." That's where the texture lies. For me, writing is often about the visceral, the immediate. Sure, I let my imagination fill in a lot of gaps. And context is always important. But the perfect little detail can sometimes inspire an entire poem.

I'm in no position to generalize about the world of academia at large. I gave up pursuing history on an academic level after undergrad. Too many historians (of course not all) eschew paradox in their efforts to cram a variety of source material into a cohesive, historiographically-oriented "thesis." Meh. There's a tremendous chasm between academic and experiential knowledge, which could be one reason for academia's discomfort when it comes to living history.

For what it's worth, I've found this website has been a fantastic resource for my work. Then again, what I'm writing has no thesis.

Brendan Hamilton

[threepdr]

I've been involved with reenactments and living history since 1972. I've considered myself a serious historical interpretor for the last 20 years or so. Thats about when my true interets drifted away from reenactments to doing public living history events.

Some have said it in previous posts, but there must be made a distinction between "reenactments" and "Living History".

Reenactment generally do not encourage interaction between the spectators and the "interpretors". Indeed, most reenactors have little intetest in public education. They attend to educate themselves and spend time with peers with like interests. The large nature of many reenactments also do not encourage visitors to interact with reenactors where they can ask questions and learn what the reenactors may (or may not) be able to teach them. Reeantments essentially are "historical drama" for all practical purposes. One writer stated that reenactments "differ only from film and video because of its live nature."

Although there may be dedicated living historians who also participate in reenactments, most reenators only play lip service to educating the public. That brand of reenactor probably fits into what Tony Horowitz termed in Confederalte in the Attic as "Redneckus Americanus".:)

Living history, in its many forms, is a viable way to interpret history to the public. Its more intimate nature allows the visitor access to the interpreter so they can ask questions and broaded the scope of their experiance. Of course this is only true for public events where the living historians can talk to and other wise interact with visitors. Non-public events and immersion events are more akin to experimental archaeology where the intent is educating oneself. Those exeriances however are not wasted for public education because they will make the interpretor more effective when he does work with the public.

Mark Hubbs
Huntsville, AL

[Hank Trent]

Living history, in its many forms, is a viable way to interpret history to the public. Its more intimate nature allows the visitor access to the interpreter so they can ask questions and broaded the scope of their experiance.

I think that's a key point: the main difference between academic history and living history is the method of interpretation. The actually academic research in preparation can be almost identical.

Had an experience last weekend that pointed that up. At a living history event, I met a spectator who'd written a book on approximately the same subject we were there to interpret, the early years of thoroughbred racing. It was clear she and I had covered virtually the same ground, as far as research. For example:

Her: "Colonel Bruce, I read once in a footnote that you'd seen the race between Grey Eagle and Wagner in Louisville, when you were much younger. Is that true?"

Me (who'd found the same fact as her source): "Yes, ma'am! I was just a boy, but it was the most exciting thing I'd ever seen. It was what first inspired me to become interested in thoroughbred racing..."

The actual factoid was out there, accessible to any researcher. I think I found it at the Keeneland library in an obituary of Bruce, but I'd need to check my notes.

She'd now run across it twice, interpreted two different ways, and one can see both the strengths and weaknesses.

When she read it interpreted in a book that quoted a primary source, she could if she wished trace it back to its source and verify it was true. That's one main advantage of that form.

Living history has the disadvantage that the sources aren't easily verifiable during the presentation, so there's more burden on the listener to judge its accuracy. For example, if she didn't know that my source said the race specifically inspired Bruce's interest in racing, she had no way of knowing whether I could "footnote" that also or if I only made it up. There's also no way to present degrees of accuracy, since everything must be presented with equal confidence. She had no way of knowing if my eye color, haircut, height or clothes were documented as accurate to Col. Bruce, a best guess, or just plain wrong, yet they all were mutely presented as equally real.

Those two things alone can turn off academic historians who are focussed on careful footnoting and scupulous accuracy. They make living history seem sloppy in comparison.

Yet living history's interpretive strength is that it brings things to life in a more memorable and full-sensory way. That's one reason I dislike third person living history. I think it takes the weakest points of two interpretive forms, written history and first-person living history, and combines them both. It neither allows for verifiable footnotes to primary sources, nor for the full emotional "you are there" experience.

If it's valid for an academic historian to give a lecture that could have been written out and silently read by the audience, I think it's also valid to interpret history in other forms as well, which have other strengths and weaknesses, including living history.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Abrams]

I am one of the newer members here, and am still learning the ins and outs of this lifestyle/hobby. Maybe the viewpoint of a new guy could be useful to you?


What, in your opinion, is the educational value of reenacting?
In my opinion, "reenactors" do not educate. Watching them is like watching a live movie. Its entertaining. Exciting to watch at times. Something different to see and do on a weekend. But rarely did I learn much of true historic value watching reenactors burn powder. But its fun to watch.

"Living Historians" on the other hand, showed me what it was like to live back then. They got my imagination working. They actually inspired me to buy books, and to read and learn more about those times. They planted a seed, and gave me a desire to learn more. I believe Living Historians make history come alive in a manner that no movie, book or lecture can do. You see it. You smell it. You touch it. You can see them live it. It was what I learned from them that made me want to learn more.


What are the corollaries of inaccurate impressions in educating our spectators?

Please note, I give this from a spectators view:
I feel an accurate impression adds to the overall "believability" of an event for the spectators. It can allow a spectator to really feel they stepped back in time for a moment, and are observing history in action. When there are no modern eye wear or any other anachronisms, the spectator can, in some cases, immerse and learn and enjoy more about that segment of history and how people really lived then. Seeds can be planted in that fertile soil.

When you see a reenactor event, with visible coolers, cans of beer, modern eye wear and shoes, atv's pulling cannon into position before the battle, well, I just did not get any historical seeds planted. It was like a carnival, and this "reenactment of the battle" was just one of the acts. It was fun to watch, but I learned nothing of any value. Does this type of event have any value to Academia? I seriously doubt it, heh. But its fun for the participants and spectators I reckon.


How can we make the reenacting community a better tool for educating American children about the Civil War?

Take your kids to Living history events, not so much to the "Battle" of Jacksonville Illinois type events. I will support only Living History type events with my time and dollars. Promotion of Living History events, and the distinguishing of the difference is something we can do.

I think it unfair for much of Academia to group all reenactors, living historians, and hardcores into one group, and then ask their value to history and education. There are differences in these groups. Some have educational value. Some don't.

The professors that states that all 'reenactors' glorify war, and are basically rednecks still wanting to fight that war again, are as boneheaded as me saying all of Academia are socialistic liberals poisoning the minds of our children. There are some facts to support both viewpoints. But as I know there are many wonderful professors that do a great job at educating the next generation, there are also many living historians and 'reenactors' that also can offer many educational opportunities and make history come alive for the spectators. And in my opinion, the living historians have a greater chance to plant a seed in a young mind that can awaken their desire to learn more about history by making it come alive for them in a way that no book can.

And in many ways, awaking the desire to learn is something every professor should desire. For without the desire to learn more, no one will take their courses. ;)

Thats my new-guy's .02 :)

[Pat.Lewis]

Reenacting, to my mind, takes a beating from academic historians for the same reason that academic military historians take a beating at the hands of their colleagues: there aren't great lessons to be learned in the minutia of military actions. Since the coming of social history, women's history, African American studies, and a host of beneficial historical fields since the 1960s, academia has justly seen pure military history as an exercise in historical self-gratification, one that serves only the historian. This was being identified even by the veterans of the Civil War themselves:

The causes from which events result are often of greater consequence than the events themselves. Nations and peoples, like individuals, act always from motives; and collective motives, like personal ones, may be either good or bad. ... It is because of this that the comparative importance of historical events depends very little on their physical extent, but almost wholly upon the motives of the actors or the sentiment they represent.

-- Albion W. Tourgee, Story of A Thousand (1896)

Today's academic military historian must make the case -- to both the university publishing houses and to their various departments -- that they reach beyond the battlefield and connect military events to broader trends in society, culture, politics, economics, etc. (it is for this reason that I identify myself as a social historian of the military when in professional circles). In Tourgee's terms, they have to examine those motives for which men went to war. Of course, Tourgee had thought that this would have come about much sooner. He didn't foresee how much the Lost Cause movement's focus on the battlefield would delay the onset of this broader military history that has only come in the last 25 years. He believed it would come much sooner. Nevertheless, he was correct in his observations and predictions on the eventual direction of military history.

History, in the past, has concerned itself with aggregations and events. It has told us how
"The King of France, with twice ten thousand men,
Marched up the hill, -- and then marched down again."
The history of the future will be more concerned to know why the "twice ten thousand" followed the crowned braggart "up the hill," than in the reasons that inclined them to march "down again," -- it will deal with the causes rather than with events.

Reenacting is seen by the academy as not having made the transition. It has not followed academic military historians into what has been dubbed this "new military history." Reenactors are understood as gearheads, drillheads, and consumers of tactical trivia. Is that a fair judgment on everyone in the community? No, but does it apply to the vast majority? I think so. In the past, I have bemoaned the lack of "why" threads on these boards when we seem to have no shortage of "what" and "how." When reenactors start dealing intelligently "with the causes" (i.e. consuming the latest trends in academic scholarship, not cowboying your own explanations for why men fought the war) "rather than with events," then we'll start to get a place at the academic table. Until then, we don't deserve one because we are a relic of an earlier academy.

[Bushrod Carter]

In my opinion, "reenactors" do not educate. Watching them is like watching a live movie. Its entertaining. Exciting to watch at times. Something different to see and do on a weekend. But rarely did I learn much of true historic value watching reenactors burn powder. But its fun to watch.

"Living Historians" on the other hand, showed me what it was like to live back then. They got my imagination working. They actually inspired me to buy books, and to read and learn more about those times. They planted a seed, and gave me a desire to learn more. I believe Living Historians make history come alive in a manner that no movie, book or lecture can do. You see it. You smell it. You touch it. You can see them live it. It was what I learned from them that made me want to learn more.






This will not add to the academic discussion, but, from an "old guy" in the hobby's perspective…

This is the EXACT same thing that was being said TWENTY years ago – except we used the terms “Farb” and “Authentic” back then.

Funny how this cycle works.

[floridawar]

Reenacting/living history seems to often be treated as a sociological phenomena in academic circles (at least the few I've been exposed to, and in the few books on the subjects I've perused). Regardless, in a theory of history class I experienced in 1999 this very subject was debated. The conclusions were that reenactment/living history had merit, but was not of itself a historical passtime (back tot he sociology theme...).
Regardless, in the historicist view, anything which happened in the past is fair game for study, and that includes how Confederates cooked around a fire, and how well a battalion could form line while moving through rough ground, etc. And as any fan of the science series like NOVA could attest, recreation can be an important part of study (I personnally love the trebuchet episode). Indeed, the only way to understand some of these minor themes is to recreate them in the context of their time.
In another spectrum, it was concluded that the empirical elements of reenacting (experience) of being in ranks, handling the musket, wearing the uniform, etc. etc. would excite the admiration of the likes of Michel Foucault etc. who placed greater emphasis on human experience than in the written word.

James "Archie" Marshall
Key West Avengers

[Rmhisteach]

What a gret disscussion. I have enjoyed reading the different perspectives and expierences. In the early days of living history for me I was a 15 year old boy who was very impressionable and was totally lit on fire by the idea of living history. The question was what is the value within academia. Keeping that in mind I will tell you that I learning far more doing living history as a HS student than I did in the classroom . Combination of good experiences and bad teachers. In college most of my professors had an apprecition for me and what I did. One even let me teach. I have spent 12 years in the classroom and an additional 3 as a Principal. Good teachers teach , show and allow students to construct knowledge. Some in academia know and understand this . Some in academia have no background in education only the subject which they teach. Some would not know good instruction if it bit them in there hind parts. I evaluate teachers and I want them to engage the audience. I think that living history has had a real postive influence on me within academia.

Rod