|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2007 19:05:51 GMT -6
This thread isn't mostly about re-enactors. I'm pointing out that a strong argument can be made that they distort historical imaging as much as recreate it. That they enjoy playing dress up, and they have to excuse it. They are owed no protection from public comment or laughter; they aren't the heroes or the actual soldiers and laughing at them isn't degrading to what they insist they embody. I don't attend such things. They aren't alone in my cellar.
I'm also of the mind that mediocre to water curdling bad local symphonies do more to hurt appreciation of 'classical' and orchestral music just like the 'meh HORSE...meh HOOOOOOORSE' school of bad Shakespearean plays put on by amateur companies deaden the magic in this country. Like the mandated attendance for school children at any thing, you'd think we'd be wanting to ensorcel and impress the kids to better stuff by putting on quality shows. No, as it happens. Parents relieve themselves of guilt by putting on or "exposing them to" Shakespeare. No matter had god awful, they'll force kids to it, and it has the same traumatic experience to kids as that which they get from other undesired adult exposures.
I'm just guessing - but it's an educated guess - that over 80% of kids forced to sit through, at age 12, The Merchant of Venice with the sing-song delivery of Oklahomans or Down Easters who memorized the script phonetically, or who are made to listen to the Ringworm Philharmonic (Miss Emma Hyphen-Pretension Conducting!) saw through Elgar with bad notes and dragging, inconsistent time is as responsible for the drug problems of youth more than rock music. I state with certainty it kills any early love for tone poem music. I can speak with some authority on those points.
Kids who come to see amateur historical performances by re-enactors - setting aside the tubs of lard that lacerate the retinas with their trousers the size of the Cutty Sark's main course bouncing on horses bruised and exhausted after five steps - get amateurs pining for applause and sucking up to local prejudices and god knows what. Yeah, there may be two or three kids that express interest in history based upon what they're told is history from the experience. My objection is it ain't.
Further, the sight of gasping, wheezing, delicately moving fat guys entering Late Youth in tight clothing is the traditional 10k year old recipe for adolescent hysterics in safety later. For every one turned on, I'd wager many more are switched off. Kids have BS detectors and refined sense of the absurd, and they'd know the old guys like to play soldier first and foremost.
Be interesting to know what percentage of those who re-enact - nay, historically reanimate - heroic soldiers ever served themselves, and how attractive this is to actual combat vets. It's quite different than Godfrey and Gall shaking hands in friendship at some ceremony after doing this on the field.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Jun 11, 2007 19:35:26 GMT -6
DarkCloud, To answer your question about re-enactors, perhaps this might explain how at least one veteran felt.I would like to quote a Civil War veteran Berry Benson. In his "Reminiscenes" he writes--" Who knows but it may be given to us, after this life, to meet again in the old quarters, to play chess and draughts, to get up soon to answer the morning roll call, to fall in at the tap of the drum for drill and dress parade, and again to hastily don our gear while the monotonous patter of the long roll summons to battle? Who knows but again the old flags, ragged and torn, snapping in the wind, may face each other and flutter, pursuing and paused, while the cries of victory fill the summer day? And after the battle, then the slain and wounded will arise, and all will meet together under the two flags, all sound and well, and there will be talking and laughter and cheers, and all will say: Did it not seem real? Was it not as in the old days?" Berry Benson "Remininiscenes" in the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 11, 2007 20:23:23 GMT -6
Wow, dc, I'm sorry you had such a difficult childhood. At 12, my kid was exposed to The Merchant of Venice by playing Shylock at Shakespeare Camp. She was there at her own request, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jun 11, 2007 23:54:51 GMT -6
I hate to mention this but I do seem to recall reading that one damned fine historian, Brian Pohanka, enjoyed reenactments and dressing in period garb. I also personally know of a museum curator who sews period-correct uniforms for participants.
Personally, I am not into reenactment. I have trouble wearing a Royals or Chiefs hat because that makes me a "wanna-be." That said, persons such as Brian, Keogh and the countless others who don the uniforms to TRY to give the disinterested some taste of realistic history-no scalping allowed, nor canister at fifteen paces-have my admiration, if not my following.
DC, chill out and go back to the original purpose of this thread!
Billy
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 12, 2007 0:45:39 GMT -6
It seems to me that you are describing a reenactment portrayed by what we term "FARBS". Yes, I have seen my share of 'farbs' at a number of reenactments, and they certainly have the potential of distorting history, often by their lack of knowlege of correct gear and tack, or allowing themselves to get far too overweight to correctly portray the role of a cavalryman, however, the above certainly does not describe the overwhelming majority of the men who I have had the privilege of reenacting with. We discourage 'farbism' in our outfits and I can say with confidence that you will not find a single "gasping, wheezing, delicately moving fat guys entering Late Youth in tight clothing" in my own company. In fact, one of our squads just returned from a mounted competition in Australia where they performed with both sword and lance in the arena, winning an award as the best historical impression. (pics can be found at: groups.msn.com/TheCusterClan/7thcavalrycompetitions.msnw?Page=1) Another of our squads spent a week in El Salvador recently accompanying the El Salvadoran horse cavalry in a mounted (and armed) patrol thru the jungles and rural farmlands of that central american nation. Most of our members are in fact veterans of the armed forces, many are currently serving as members of our police agencies. They have no illusions to grandeur, nor do they vision themselves as heroes deserving of public accolades. Most are quite uncomfortable in the limelight and simply enjoy the company of their fellow troopers in the field as well as the opportunity to ride a horse across a land rife with history. When we do perform before an audience, I can assure you that we do not encounter laughter. Mostly it is some form of applause, but that is not a motivational factor, as ego gratification does not wear well around our camp. Often we are asked by the public to explain the life of a cavalryman in the field or to pose for photos. Rarely, if ever, does a reenactor perform his trade for monetary compensation. He clearly has a great love for this hobby, and feels that his greatest role is to educate the general public as best they can about the era in which they reenact.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 12, 2007 6:52:29 GMT -6
I looked at the pictures but I would not use aus06-vi[1].jpg to refute DC's comment. Since I am at least 40 pounds heavier than when I was in Viet Nam I don't think I could even portray myself correctly in my old uniforms. I don't think the general public would know if the uniforms were correct or not and that really is not what we are discussing. It is the impression that is left or words given that matters. Sticking to facts without personal and era filter modifications is hard to do.
I am interested in the mounted law enforcement officers and if they patrol on the job. You could give them my email or my work email. We are conducting training in August for mounted officers.
sandrews@azgfd.gov
Thanks AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 12, 2007 8:46:00 GMT -6
Melonie, your example is the exact opposite of mine. Maybe your kid had a good education and wanted to go to Shakespeare camp, perhaps out of a love of the bard OR having read that most British movie actors honed their chops on stage in theater. This is very different than mothers parading their morose charges into the high school to see her, or her equivalent, perform the play on stage. (She might be Claire Bloom, but in general, it isn't likely) That was a camp precisely for Shakespeare, so few were there without that initial spark.
What I complain about is too many crappy productions stomp and piss on that spark by their lousy, half-assed performance. Even so, in keeping with my previous complaints about parents, you like to brag your kid went to Shakespeare camp. But I'm not focussed on you or your kid, I'm focussed on the other kids made to watch mediocre productions and losing an appreciation of and actual interest in Shakespeare by the people in general.
If people announce with Patton like trumpets they are a re-enactor and expect reverence and hushed whispers to grant their views on the battle, I'm pointing out that being a re-enactor isn't a pass and does not alone grant insight. Neither does a West Point degree.
It does grant posters the chance to dress up and pose for avatars, apparently.
To ease Kansan Koncerns, I've admitted there are historians who participate in these things. It's not a 100% sweep. But Pohanka was in good condition, and his elevation as a historian was not based upon his re-enactors credentials. Some schlub who is a re-enactor has no right to call himself a "living historian" and be so elevated. It demeans the profession. That's not even as solid as Sanitation Engineer, or whatever the joke about janitors was.
I suppose, Keogh, that could all be true. But that doesn't affect my point an iota. The vast majority of re-enactors are as I've described. If they have other qualifications to call themselves "historians" it's not due to their duds. I wonder, though, about your description of vets. Surely, with one year of ROTC, you are not a vet. Further, my interest was what COMBAT vets thought of this, and what percentage of them participate in it.
I do not understand gocav's point with the quote of a civil war vet. He's talking about those who actually fought rising from the dead, ala the Norse Valhalla: this was their heaven, having a battle every day and a drink every night. He's in no way referencing re-enactments, and reading that into it is the exact sort of thing that annoys me, because you're implying in some way it's the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 12, 2007 12:11:51 GMT -6
(dc:)If people announce with Patton like trumpets they are a re-enactor and expect reverence and hushed whispers to grant their views on the battle, I'm pointing out that being a re-enactor isn't a pass and does not alone grant insight. Neither does a West Point degree.(keogh:) dc, I do not know of anyone on this board who has "announced with Patton like trumpets" that they are a reenactor. I certainly have not done so and I am not aware of any other who has to date. Nor have I (or any other reenactor on this board to my knowlege) expected "reverence and hushed whispers" to grant our views on the battle. No reenactor has asked for a pass here, nor to be granted any special insight. I assure you that the views of a reenactor are no more special than the views of a gas station attendent or perhaps a backwater radio broadcaster. (dc:) It does grant posters the chance to dress up and pose for avatars, apparently.(keogh:) I have been dressing up and posing for pics long before this board ever came into existance. I would think that my own avatar would illustrate better your description of the average reenactor as a fat, grey-haired old slob who could barely stay mounted on a horse. (dc:) To ease Kansan Koncerns, I've admitted there are historians who participate in these things. It's not a 100% sweep. But Pohanka was in good condition, and his elevation as a historian was not based upon his re-enactors credentials. Some schlub who is a re-enactor has no right to call himself a "living historian" and be so elevated. It demeans the profession. That's not even as solid as Sanitation Engineer, or whatever the joke about janitors was.
(keogh:) All reenactors do not call themselves "living historians". Some are, but most would not profess to do so. A "living historian" is an expression used in the reenactment world to describe a reenactor who is portraying a particular character in history. They take this task very seriously and do all they can to give an accurate portrayal of this historical personage. A good example of a living historian is Steve Alexander, who has portrayed Custer for quite a number of years. He goes about the country giving talks and presentations in the first person role of Custer. He is not just "winging it" or making things up as he goes along. He has spent years studying all that he can about the General and his personal habits and effects. The same can be said for all reenactors who have taken on a particular character to portray. This is quite different from the ordinary reenactor, whose only desire is to dress up and participate in a reenactment. I happen to have a degree in US history, but this is not a basic requirement to become a "living historian", any more than the notion that having a degree in history is somehow a requirement for becoming an accepted and respected researcher or author on the LBH battle per se. Nearly all the well know authors here at the LBHA do not, in fact, have any background (either academically or by profession) in US History, nor would we expect them to, or challenge their research because of it. The same level of respect should be granted to our reenactors. (dc:) I suppose, Keogh, that could all be true. But that doesn't affect my point an iota. The vast majority of re-enactors are as I've described. If they have other qualifications to call themselves "historians" it's not due to their duds. I wonder, though, about your description of vets. Surely, with one year of ROTC, you are not a vet. Further, my interest was what COMBAT vets thought of this, and what percentage of them participate in it.(keogh:) The vast majority of reenactors that I have encountered are not all fat slobs, as you insinuate. You are describing the FARBS, and most serious reenactors avoid them like the plague. The majority of reenactors most certainly do not describe themselves as "historians" either, and if they do, it is not due to their duds. I have never claimed that my experience in ROTC or my completion of Officer Training Camp at Fort Bragg or my being awarded the The Association of the US Army medal in some way qualifies me as a vet. I have never claimed to be a veteran, nor have I stood on my own military experience, which, small as it is, is certainly more than your own lack of military experience. We do have a number of combat vets in our ranks, as well as active police officers who I think might well qualify for combat experience, and they are among our most avid reenactors. For the life of me, I cannot understand your obsession with combat veterans since you yourself are anything but one. For your own information, both of my Sergeants in "Wild I" (tassiewolf occasionally posts here) are combat vets. Tassiewolf has suffered serious wounds in battle and my 2nd Sgt. is a vet of the 101st and has received a bronze medal for combat. My 2nd Lt. (Sturgis) is currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. My 1st Lt. is a US army vet and police officer. None of them are the fat, out of shape buffoons you take such delight in describing.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 12, 2007 13:41:27 GMT -6
A BA in anything does not grant pro status. You're not a historian by training.
Not only am I not a vet, I cheerfully admit to being a coward. I in no way pretend to soldierhood, bravery, or any of that.
There's a difference between combat vets and guys who have served as typists or clerks. The former have been in life and death situations, perhaps often, the latter have not. Do you see the difference? I can, and that's the fixation. Someone who has not been in those sort of situations cannot really comment, much less condemn, on the validity of actions by those who have, especially regarding cowardice. I'm perfectly willing to honor combat vets, and do, less so people no more experienced in combat than myself, and I've been a bouncer.
I'm most interested, since you've repeatedly called it my attention, where your degrees were obtained. Also, why is a medal from a lobbying association to impress, and what was it for? And what is Officer Training Camp, at Ft. Bragg or elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 12, 2007 17:37:23 GMT -6
So, dc, tell us about your training as a historian. Or what you feel is required for that.
And by the way, how often do you work with school-age kids?
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 12, 2007 17:59:48 GMT -6
(dc:) A BA in anything does not grant pro status. You're not a historian by training.
(keogh:) pray tell me what type of training qualifies one as a historian? lol. btw, I have never claimed to be a historian of any sort, only to have a university degree in it. who among this board qualifies as a professional historian in your view? And please do enumerate their qualifications and their "training" as a historian....
(dc:) Not only am I not a vet, I cheerfully admit to being a coward. I in no way pretend to soldierhood, bravery, or any of that.
(keogh:) I have never questioned your credentials in this regard, nor have I ever made any disparaging remarks concerning your lack of military experience. I would much rather prefer to respond to your arguments in a logical and scholarly manner, rather than resort to personal insults to make my points in a discussion.
(dc:) There's a difference between combat vets and guys who have served as typists or clerks. The former have been in life and death situations, perhaps often, the latter have not. Do you see the difference? I can, and that's the fixation. Someone who has not been in those sort of situations cannot really comment, much less condemn, on the validity of actions by those who have, especially regarding cowardice. I'm perfectly willing to honor combat vets, and do, less so people no more experienced in combat than myself, and I've been a bouncer.
(keogh:) I understand this concern of yours dc, however, I do believe that you would not attempt to justify muzzling anyone on this board from expressing an opinion unless they are a combat vet? Surely, that would disqualify the overwhelming majority of all our posters who were not so fortunate as to be born during a combat situation, including yourself, when you make disparaging remarks about the alleged stupidity of Custer's strategy and maneuvers at LBH. When I have referenced remarks regarding Reno's alleged cowardice or incompetence, I have done so by quoting the opinions of any number of combat veterans who were present at LBH. I do think that Godfrey, DeRudio, Girard, and Pvt. Taylor were all combat veterans, yet they all expressed the opinion that Reno showed the white feather that day. Are you saying we must all be combat veterans in order to agree with their assessment?
(dc:) I'm most interested, since you've repeatedly called it my attention, where your degrees were obtained. Also, why is a medal from a lobbying association to impress, and what was it for? And what is Officer Training Camp, at Ft. Bragg or elsewhere?
(keogh:) My undergraduate degree was from Washington and Lee University in Virginia. It is the 6th oldest university in the US and has the distinction of hosting the burial chapel of Robert E. Lee, who served as its president after the end of the Civil War. It also holds the burial place of his favorite horse Traveler, for those who might be interested in visiting the beautiful campus. My Masters was obtained in the less historical CUNY. The medal was presented for leadership after I represented the corps at a convention held at the Pentagon. OTC is a requirement of all cadets to undergo before they are qualified to receive a commission in the US Army. All of these things mean absolutely nothing when it comes to my online postings. I have never claimed to be an authority on anything, nor to have more or less qualifications than any other poster here on the boards. Nor have I pried into your own academic qualifications, nor questioned your right or authority to express your opinions on this board. Could we not keep our civil discussions on a more professional, and less personal level? We are here to discuss all aspects of the LBH, not to analyze my academic or military qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 12, 2007 18:31:11 GMT -6
I've only claimed to have finished third grade. Having made no academic or professional claims, I have none to present or defend, and am unassailable in that regard. I've never worked with children outside of swimming lessons and as members of a ticket buying public. Although, I've employed them on stage and hosted programs oriented their way, mostly through third parties.
You're correct Keogh, none of that makes any difference for posting to the board. Except you brought it up. Now, about this medal: what corps? Not soldiers, apparently. Cadets of what are required to go to Officer Training Camp? Whoever they are, they don't have to be soldiers. You call yourself a "living historian." What are your qualifications to so claim? In reality, you're an amateur actor with a BA in history. If people claim military or academic qualifications, they're open to be questioned about it. We'd only know if they claimed it.
And, as recent exchanges have proven, you're not detail oriented. I'm still wondering where this trove of Weir's opinion material is. And Godfrey explicitly did not call Reno a coward.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 12, 2007 23:12:29 GMT -6
I've only claimed to have finished third grade. Perhaps a few more field trips would have helped you go farther. You certainly seem much better educated than that. I am regularly involved in living history programs for schoolchildren, both as a hobby and as part of my job. I have not noticed that they ridicule the presenters for being older, younger, fatter, skinnier or the wrong sex than the original historic characters. Of course, we mostly do these programs for 4th to 8th graders, who are still reasonably civilized. I have also worked with 14 to 18-year-old Sea Scouts, and teenagers ridicule everything. Generally speaking, we find that the kids are very interested in whatever special clothing, gear, or gadgets the time period in question offers, and ask a lot of questions. They are not especially concerned with the fact that our lieutenant has a white beard and couldn't fit into his Viet Nam uniform; they want to hear about his cannon. They don't care that "Mr. Watts" and "Mr. Ballard" aboard our 1886 squarerigger are really women; they want to know how to sail the ship. Some of the kids who went through the Age of Sail program at San Francisco Maritime as 4th graders now work there. And by the way, you have no idea what badly performed Shakespeare is like until you have sat through The Merchant of Venice or MacBeth performed by 8 to 12-year-olds. However, I seriously doubt that seeing or participating in a decidedly amateur performance by their peers is going to make kids hate Shakespeare; rather the opposite. If they develop an interest early, they will also develop the sophistication to seek out good performances, or at least to appreciate the enthusiasm of amateurs. My experience has been that most of the time, the public is delighted to be drawn into first-person presentations. Every now and then, we get somebody who just doesn't want to "play," either because they feel too uncomfortable or because they feel, as you apparently do, that the whole thing is stupid. So for them we revert to the 21st century. We are not rude to them, and we don't ridicule them for not wanting to join us.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 13, 2007 1:40:22 GMT -6
(dc:) You're correct Keogh, none of that makes any difference for posting to the board. Except you brought it up. Now, about this medal: what corps? Not soldiers, apparently. Cadets of what are required to go to Officer Training Camp? Whoever they are, they don't have to be soldiers. You call yourself a "living historian." What are your qualifications to so claim? In reality, you're an amateur actor with a BA in history. If people claim military or academic qualifications, they're open to be questioned about it. We'd only know if they claimed it.
(keogh:) My dear dc. Really now, I think I have made it quite clear that I am not standing on my academic credentials nor on my military experience, so I think your probing questions are a bit out of line and quite irrelevant. I have stated time and again that I would prefer that whatever views I post here be taken on the merits of its arguments, not on the perceived qualifications of the poster. I am sorry to hear that you cannot understand the meaning of the term "living historian", and I notice that you are unable to respond to my query regarding your own notion of what constitutes the training of a proper historian. I think you would need to study this issue a bit more before pontificating from your comfortable armchair about my amateur acting skills or my level of competence in the field of history. This is the first time I have had my academic achievements questioned by a 3rd Grader!
(dc:) And, as recent exchanges have proven, you're not detail oriented. I'm still wondering where this trove of Weir's opinion material is. And Godfrey explicitly did not call Reno a coward.
Weir's opinion of Reno's conduct in the valley comes from a conversation between himself and Benteen that was recorded by Lt. Hare in a letter. It was posted earlier on this board not too long ago. Godfrey may not have "explicitly" called Reno a coward, but he certainly described his actions in the valley as such, especially in the last sentence below. From his letter to Agent Asbury in 1929:
"...I always felt that Major Reno utterly failed in his part in the valley attack in the disposition of his command when he fell back in the old stream bed; that he failed to exercise any fire control; that he could and should have held that position....Having made the decision to retreat, he made no disposition to cover that retreat or to properly inform the command of such decision; that he in person led a panic, straggling retreat, hereby sacrificing many lives and the morale of his command. The shock from the killing of Bloody Knife at his side or near him seems to have bereft him of the sense of official responsibility and to impel him to seek safety in flight. "
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 13, 2007 6:50:12 GMT -6
And by the way, you have no idea what badly performed Shakespeare is like until you have sat through The Merchant of Venice or MacBeth performed by 8 to 12-year-olds. You need to read what I wrote again. Yes. I. Do.
Keogh, you have no military experience. Nobody dresses up ROTC as military experience, do they? You've never been in the military.
Yet again, Keogh. Cadet of what, corps of what? You wouldn't want the unwary to think you, a civvy, represented soldiers, do you? Or that by cadet you mean the Long Grey Line?
To think a degree in history makes you a historian is thinking a degree in English makes you a writer, or a degree in music a composer. And a BA at that. Referencing your "military experience" and your tender, tender academic credentials (so many here survive without feeling the need to present their own) is just laughable. Again.
|
|