This week’s readings were a really nice mix of how history is presented to the public-in addressing both historical reenactments and the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The first article by Nick Kowalczyck “Embedded with Reenactors” illustrates that people have a strong desire to make meaningful connections with the past. However, this article also sheds light on people’s glaring ignorance of the past, including all of the pasts complexities as well as its relationship to the present. Ann Little’s piece “The Limited (and queer?) Vision of American Historical Reenacting” makes a great connection between race and gender in the reenacting world, although Kowalczyck does mention some female reenactors in his article, for the most part reenactors seem to be white, male, and over 40. This fact leads Little to contemplate that “the desire to live in the past (if only on weekends and special occasions) is a wish more widespread among white men in particular than among others.” I have to admit that this comment by Little made me think about the Tea Party’s obsession with revolutionary and colonial clothing and symbols. In the context of the first two articles, Kevin M. Levins article “Why Doesn’t Anyone Think its Cool to Dress up Like a Confederate Soldier Anymore?” makes me wonder, with the current state of reenactments, is this the best way to engage young people historically?
The other articles for this week also look at public history but through lens of Wikipedia. Naom Cohen, in “Define Gender Gap? Look up Wikipedia’s Contributor List” brings up an important issue. I am guessing that there are numerous reasons why women don’t contribute as much as men on Wikipedia; some of these reasons are practical and some sociological, such as the gender issues the author addresses. I do feel it is important to diversify Wikipedia by broadening perspectives for each post, but is Wikipedia the best place to focus our energies when it comes to gender equality? Besides the gender gap on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia also seems like a dangerous use of information in regards to its ‘majority rule’ and ‘undue truth’ policies. Timothy Messer-Kruse’s article “The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia” was quite alarming and I disagree with Andy Famiglietti’s rebuttal to Messer-Kruse in “Weighing Consensus-Building Truth on Wikipedia”. Oftentimes, the truth is a lonely thing lost in a majority ruled by ignorance. I believe many early scientists of the Enlightenment are examples of this. I understand and agree that Wikipedia editors should be discerning, but in their discernment there should also be an allowance for flexibility.
Great questions April. You ask: “with the current state of reenactments, is this the best way to engage young people historically?” I think the first article’s anectode about the two kids playing Mario Brothers hints that video games are the way to engage young people. I think I would put reenacting at the same level of historic video games, no?
Nice point Jim, I do think it is important to meet people where they are at. I think in addition to games- historical films and television are still a great way to engage people, but I wish there was a way we could engage folks enough to want to read more books as well as provide a deeper understanding of the pasts relationship to the present.
I don’t know how we do that.