Re-enactors: Pro or Con? (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

I'm not sure if this is the right place but here goes.

On June 29, the Wall Street Journal ran a story that said, "Peter Carmichael, a professor of history at Gettysburg College, calls re-enactments an 'unfortunate distraction' from a deeper understanding of the Civil War, including the motivations of those who fought and its legacy."

This of course has led to your proverbial brouhaha. See here for some background on the story, http://sablearm.blogspot.com/2013/07/re-enactors-vs-academics-controversy.html

Here's the article by Donald Gilliland that triggered the controversy, http://blog.pennlive.com/gettysburg..._war_re-enactments.html#incart_special-report

This has generated a lot of discussion. See http://cwmemory.com/2013/07/08/on-the-reenacting-go-round/ for the views of Kevin Levin at Civil War Memory. The comments are worth reading.

Brooks Simpson at his blog Crossroads has also commented, http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/reenactors-reenactments-and-living-historians/#comments

An interesting topic to say the least.

 

[Rob]

Difficult one this Brad. These guys aren't actually doing any harm and in their own way are saluting the men who went before, however I can see a point of view of not allowing it on the actual days of anniversary etc and I think that should be respected. I wonder how many visitors to Gettysburg enjoy seeing them and how many think they are an annoyance?

As for later era , again I can see the appeal of dressing up as allied soldiers but you couldn't pay me to dress as a Nazi . Gives me the creeps just imagining it!

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Con!
Mitch

 

[braddinpa]

As someone who studies history. I can never imagine myself doing it. I feel a deep respect for the the Civil War Soldiers and for me I would feel weird "playing" soldier. I show my respect by still paying homage by visiting the soldiers graves in small towns so they are not forgotten.

When I was at the "sunrise at Hazel Grove walk" at the 150th of Chancellorsville, I carried a letter of soldier who was killed at that location 150 years ago at that approximate time. For me that was one of the most powerful feelings I have ever felt. But for me that is a special connection. Same with the 150th of Longstreets Assault. I was not dressed up. But it was a very powerful feeling.

But after saying that. I do think they serve a useful purpose. Because someone who is 5 years old or 10 years old. They are more fascinated by the reinactors than seeing stone sentinals. I think they help get young people interested. And if it gets just a few people interested in the Civil War. Then I think that is good.

Ok, after this wordy response. To summarize. I don't do it and couldn't see myself doing it. But I do think it is useful for getting younger people interested in that time period.

Brad

 

[Terp152]

I was fascinated as a boy watching the Battle of Bull Run in 1962. Helped grow my interest in the subject. I've done living histories in the WWII era. Always felt our presentations were very much appreciated. If people enjoy it, both as viewers and participants I can't see the harm. Chris

 

[Napoleon1er]

First of all I should state that I am an American Revolutionary War reenactor who is part of a reputable artillery unit. Second if all I should state that there are HUGE differences between individual units and even whole period s of reenacting- some behaviors associated with reenactors only apply to certain less reputable groups or are more typical if ACW reenactors than other periods (not to say all ACW reenactors are this way).
I completely respect you not identifying with reenactors' choice to reenact, but please remember that most people look at toy soldier collecting the same way- wouldn't you be slightly offended if reenactors laughed at TS collectors?
Reenacting is a completely different look at military history than TS. As a reenactor, you learn much more about individual soldiers, uniforms (especially kit and specifics), command structure, and small scale tactics. I find that both TS collecting and reenacting combine to give me a unique perspective on history. I can look at TS poses and say, "Wow, no one would ever be in that position," or, "This is a unique position that I find myself in often." When setting up dioramas, I get a better sense of how actions actually play out that you can't get from paintings or pictures. Notice how many people such as Ken Osen are reenactors!
Reenacting is not dressing up and playing soldier. It is a combination of camping with friends and family, shooting, craftsmanship (sewing, blacksmithing, woodworking), scholarship (uniform and equipment research), and of course what is essentially large-scale wargaming.
As to the notion that it is disrespectful, I would say this idea is disrespectful within itself. Reenactors are often current or ex military. We have the utmost respect for those we portray, and being called disrespectful can be equated to saying TS collectors are disrespectful for turning war into toys: both statements hold no merit.

Please be respectful of our hobby- TS collecting and reenacting have much and many people in common and can exist in a symbiotic manner. I thinly the thread is a good idea, but it's title is a bit hurtful, just as "TS collecting: Fun or Dumb" would be.
Thanks for listening,
Sandor

 

[jazzeum]

I wasn't and am not taking a position one way or the other but if you look at the video from the National Park Service in the Civil War Memory link, I think what the spokesperson said makes sense.

 

[Jack]

Interesting that the controversy as described in the articles was the cynical creation of someone who wished to feel slighted – a little bit of the ‘I am opposed so therefore I am’. You would think that there is enough real injustice around to warrant righteous indignation without having to invent something. We see it here in this country where it is a common tactic – paint someone as the member of an elite and then assume the role of spokesperson for the ‘real Australia’. These self-appointed spokesmen claim to be representatives of a section of society who have in no way consented to their leadership.

As for re-enactors, I will admit that before I started collecting TS I may well have seen it as a bit of a lame pursuit. After having enjoyed the TS experience I say more power to them. They enjoy their history their way and I enjoy mine in a way that brings me enjoyment. I will admit to some hypocrisy - I looked at the WW2 German re-enactors a touch differently than the other groups but it is of course difficult to re-enact a battle if the opposition isn't allowed to front.

It is part of a series of wider questions anyway – who owns a nation’s history, the deep human need for ritual (how is re-enacting philosophically different from any other ritualised behaviour – the changing of the guard, opening of parliament, Easter), and the even more basic but just as vital situation where a group of people with a shared interest log off their computers, close down Facebook, turn off their mobile phones and hang out with other.

As a side issue, a group of Aussie collectors are planning to head to Waterloo for the 200th anniversary re-enactment – just to watch, though!

Interesting thread - I once had the very enjoyable experience of speaking to a re-enactor who had just finished a PhD which was an assessment of the motives and experiences of a group here in Australia.

 

[blaster]

Not being a re-enactor myself, I can still appreciate those that have plunked in their time, money and effort into this aspect of the hobby.

On the pros, excellent re-enactments give a dynamic historical impression of bygone eras and, in my opinion, are just as valid as dry theses, old prints, drawings or photos on mouldy bookshelves. Good re-enactments sometimes brings new life and visitors (tourist dollars) to maintain the historical sites.

On the cons, poor re-enactments are dressed-up paintball games. Most people can distinguish between the two extreme types.

 

[Napoleon1er]

I unfairly bashed on ACW before- my apologies. When I referred to other periods, I meant that reenactors tend to have a reputation for heavy drinking, inaccuracy, and avidly portraying groups which were either decidedly evil (Nazis) or debatable racist. Others are downright pompous so-and-sos. As to WWII German reenactors, I cannot speak for them, but I can tell you ACW reenacting is a mix of accurate and kind people as well as FARBy people. But all hobbies have their less-than-kind members, and I can vouch for AWI reenactors having some less-than-modest and inaccurate members.

 

[maddadicus]

I wasn't and am not taking a position one way or the other but if you look at the video from the National Park Service in the Civil War Memory link, I think what the spokesperson said makes sense.

The National Park Service has contributed commentary, historical background and support to re-enactor videos that represent the battles of the period. I have an Antietam dvd as well as a Gettysburg one, all done with the Park Service blessings. Heck, they even sell these vids at everyone of their kiosks...Michael

 

[Warrior]

Here's the article by Donald Gilliland that triggered the controversy, http://blog.pennlive.com/gettysburg..._war_re-enactments.html#incart_special-report

The article is one thing, the comments from Ronald and John at the end of it left me speechless, take a look at the link to other comments made by John Hall, those left me BEYOND speechless.

Fort Pillow?

Really; Fort Pillow?

You'll need an English to moron dictionary to try to wrap your head around what either of them are talking about.

If you participate in that hobby to get a sense of how the soldiers from the Civil War lived and fought, that's one thing; if you participate in that hobby to try to continue to fight the Civil War, my suggestion is to run your head down to the local fix it shop in town and get that loose screw tightened.

I hate to paint with a broad brush, but if either of these two are typical of what you'd deal with in that hobby, you wouldn't find me within 200 miles of it.

 

[blaster]

FYI. Besides some nice pictorial books, there are a couple of books which discusses the philosophical aspects of this hobby:

The Trench by Richard Emden (focusing on WWI)
Wargames: Inside the World of Twentieth Century War Reenactors by Jenny Thompson (focusing on WWII)

Neither of them covers the American Civil War, which is largely discussed here.

 

[Terp152]

I think reenacting adds a dimension you don't get from simply reading about the battles. Something about seeing thousands of "troops" on the field is impressive. IMO of course. Chris



Or a concert in period uniform.


The bass section.

 

[Napoleon1er]

Reenacting is also not a modern invention. After a major victory, territorial units often put on a "recreation" of a battle near large cities. George- those guys are not typical of the hobby. As I said there are some units that are not invited to events due to their members.

 

[6th Wisconsin]

Robert E. Lee himself is reported to have said at Fredericksburg it is a good thing that war is so terrible or else we would grow too fond of it. Very profound, not only for those who were fighting that war, but also for those of us who read about it and watch it happen in our own times. Just look at the news coverage, movies, video games, and yes toy soldiers, and reenactors. It is one of those things most of us know is terrible, but we cannot help but be fascinated by it. I have told my children several times that although I wish the Civil War had never happened, it sure is interesting.

I have never been to the Gettysburg reenactment, but I did go to the large 140th of Antietam, held outside Hagerstown, Cedar Creek a couple of times (ran across it by accident the first time on a Civil War battlefield trip), and the 140th of Bentonville in my own state. I have also seen many smaller scale living history encampments and demonstrations. When I visited the Antietam battlefield at the time of the 140th, I saw a Confederate regiment in the actual Bloody Lane and watched a Texas unit hold a short ceremony at the Texas monument.

As a photographer, I have to admit these can be fun activities. They can also be evocative at times. On my first day at the Antietam reenactment I arrived (a bit disoriented because I had a hard time even finding the place) well before light to watch the Cornfield reenactment. As I walked to the location, I could see little but heard drums sounding around me as the camps were stirring in preparation for the "battle." After a cannonade to open the battle, I watched the Iron Brigade enter the smoke-enshrouded cornfield they had planted for the occasion.

Yes, it brings history to life. Yes, it can be exciting. Yes, it likely does create a lot more interest in young people. Let's face it, most of us did not become interested in the history of war primarily by visiting far flung battle sites or from listening to our grandfathers talk about their own adventures. Sure, that is true for some, especially those lucky enough to live near major historic sites, but most of us gained interest from watching movies, even many that seemed to glorify war, starring the likes of John Wayne. What is missing from reenactments is the human cost. Reenactors can never feel the dread or the absolute fear or the sorrow of the eve and aftermath of battle, and yes, in that sense they are kind of sterile for viewers too (and that is a good thing!).

Are reenactments a negative in general? No. I truly believe they do create more interest and bring the uniforms and tactics to life. Are there negative effects? That depends. If there are some out there from my part of the country still fighting the war and sharing with children a sense of being wronged by the results of the Civil War (I did read some of the comments made on the Gettysburg article link), then it is possible reenacting can serve to glorify a cause that perhaps should not be glorified outside of honoring the sacrifices and experiences of our ancestors and trying to understand what they endured. And I am definitely in the same camp as those who find some reenacting creepy - dressing in an SS uniform, for example. I also think there is a potential for misinformation as the knowledge level of reenactors we encounter is going to vary widely compared to someone like park historians.

Luckily, as anyone who has visited Gettysburg knows, there are obviously a lot of people who don't need a reenactment to draw them there. Yet, I do wonder if there is a negative effect for Gettysburg because of the timing of the yearly events. I am sure they draw more people to the town, but do the people who come spend too much of their limited time at the reenactments at the expense of the town and battlefield where there is so much to learn and experience. For those of us who like a more contemplative visit or enjoy photography, the crowd factor can also make us want to skip the anniversaries and visit at other times of year.

 

[Warrior]

George- those guys are not typical of the hobby. As I said there are some units that are not invited to events due to their members.

Glad to hear it, the comments from Ronald were bad enough (I have no idea what his Massachusetts accent comments were about, made zero sense, as did 99% of what he had to say), but the ones from Hall were 100 times worse, he's about 70 or 80 years behind the times.

I really hope that guy is not breeding.

 

[theBaron]

Pro.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Harper (aka Spitfrnd)]

Frankly I thought the article was absurd and a transparent effort to create an artificial controversy. Even Carmichael has complained that his comments were taken out of context and effectively misinterpreted. As far as the reporters “egghead versus interloper” assessment goes, it is a pity that the catchy phrasing wasn't matched by substance. This is not a standard of journalism that engenders respect for the profession.

As for Professor Carmichael's view on battle reconstruction I think he needs to spend some more time reviewing his history. One comment that really stood out for me was his "questioning the propriety - when the country is in the midst of a war - of making war a spectator sport." Perhaps he has forgotten that several ACW battles were witnessed by many civilian spectators. This was not the first or last war to experience such audience involvement, including most recently the live video feeds from Iraq. Perhaps also if war had more spectators, starting one would not be as simple. Of course the idea that any particular method of exploring history is superior to any other method represents the pinnacle of effete delusion.

 

[lancer]

I've always appreciated the re-enactor, what they bring to the public, and what they go through to bring it to the public. The 'hobby' has always intrigued me, regardless of time period represented. I'm sure some units are better, more accurate, than others but it is hard to fault someone who loves to do it, spends their own time and money in an attempt to bring history alive, and then give their efforts over to public viewing. I'm a definite pro for them. -- Al