Month: March 2013

I thought this was an interesting article that presents a unique way for museums to raise money.

http://publichistorycommons.org/digital-crowdfunding/

Sorry I couldn’t activate the hyperlink.

Reenactment

Kowalczyk offers his readers a personal experience with reenactors and reenacting.  By posing as a scribe, Kowalczyk was able to act as a journalist in the midst of a reenactment of the French and Indian War.  His insights into the world of reenacting are both big and small.  Not being able to shower, he comments that “war really is hell.”  His more lofty insights include “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.”  He also states that being on the battlefield exactly 250 years later, he couldn’t help but imagine the people who were injured and killed there during the actual battle.  Kowalczyk explains how reenacters are able to explain, in this case, the significance of the French and Indian War.  Reenacters are self-ascribed “people with an appreciation for history.”  He concedes that the reenacters are a fringe group of mostly white, overweight, uncoordinated men who take historical fashion to the extreme; however, he does not allow this reality to cloud his study of reenacting.  For Old Hickory, reenacting is a way to step out of his shell, engage with the history he so loves, and enjoy the camaraderie that comes with it.  These reenacters take their jobs (hobbies) seriously; for example, they never smile for pictures, striving to become a part of the history they identify with.  These individuals are public historians, they offer real-life engagements with historical events that allow others to learn about, engage with, and witness history.  These public historians are bringing history to life, what more can people ask for?

Little’s article denigrates Kowalczyk’s article for being too shallow, too journalistic in nature, and failing to ask questions about relevance, queerness, race, and gender.  Little views reenacters as queer, white men trying to regain the glory days of the republic where the world was a better place.  Little seems rather stuck on the point of race, explaining that blacks don’t want to reenact because they would have been slaves before the Civil War.  Little states that “romanticizing the past, like reenacting, is a White thing,” and Little might as well have added that it is a male thing, seeing as he mentions the lack of female involvement later in his article.  This article ends by explaining that only imperialistic, racist, sexist, horrific events are reenacted.  This is simply not true.  Vice President Joe Biden, politicized Reverend Al Sharpton, and politicized Jesse Jackson recently led a Reenactment of the Voting Rights March to commemorate a famous civil rights march.  Universities and cities reenact Martin Luther King’s Marches with his speeches annually.  People might not dress up for the event, but they certainly follow in MLK’s footsteps, read his speech, and convene on a historically accurate date.  As for women’s rights, there are reenactments of the beginning of the Women’s Movement in Seneca Falls, New York.  Many states and cities have reenactments commemorating women’s suffrage, even if they are only on seemingly important anniversaries (10, 20, 25, 50 years…).  I found these events through a simple Google search, and I am sure individuals searching for events to reenact will be able to find them just as easily.

Levin discussed the lack of growth and following currently being experienced by the Sons of the Confederacy.  Levin discussed the cultural transformations that have occurred in the past fifty or so years, explaining that American culture has become “tired” of “Civil War narratives.”  Levin explains that reenacters must “revise” their “expectations” and/or their “audience” in order to remain culturally, socially, or politically relevant.  He states that “making the Civil War relevant today is a formidable task;” but, I feel that the Civil War, having defined so much of our nation’s history, will remain relevant for years to come.  The mere fact that the Civil War boasts the most reenacters as well as a huge fan base both academically and non-academically disproves this statement.  As for Confederates, their beliefs, their culture, and their history, I wish Levin would have delved deeper.  Confederates, most easily symbolized by the Sons [and Daughters] of the Confederacy, are striving to maintain cultural ties to their ancestors.  These individuals have the right to celebrate their culture just as the rest of America has the right to celebrate their culture.  While I understand that St. Paul’s Episcopal Church does not want to be identified with a fringe group in society, I am rather disgusted that they have stopped a historic reenactment from occurring.  Some of the founding and leading members of the Confederacy attending this church before, during, and after the Civil War; as such, the historic and cultural descendants of the Confederacy deserve to follow their ancestors footsteps and celebrate their culture.

Wikipedia

Cohen writes about the disparity that exists between male and female contributors to Wikipedia.  According to recent surveys, men account for 85% of Wikipedia entries and women account for a mere 15%.  Wikipedia allows anyone to [try to] publish and edit articles.  Wikipedia has not sought out male contributors; rather, the “current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally.”  In order to change current male-dominated trends, “conscious effort[s] to change” must be engaged.  While reading the section of the article about Ms. Gardner’s shocking discovery that a female author near and dear to her heart has a “mere three paragraphs,” while a video game character had numerous paragraphs, I thought to myself “Why doesn’t Ms. Gardner go in and remedy this?  She need only contribute to the entry on her beloved female author.”  I was relieved that this indeed occurred, as I read precisely that in the last paragraph.  Women are just as intelligent as men, and Wikipedia is all about general consensus of knowledge.  If Wikipedia has such a problem with having a male-dominated entry force, they should actively seek out female entries.  While this does not seem like a world changing problem to me, I am sure that there are many women with plenty to say, they just haven’t been asked yet.

Dr. Messer-Kruse, renowned Haymarket Riot historian, had a falling-out with Wikipedia.  His interactions with Wikipedia reinforced my distaste for the website Wikipedia.  Messer-Kruse had verifiable proof that Wikipedia was promoting incorrect understandings regarding the Haymarket Riot; and he would know, he is one of the foremost experts on the Haymarket Riot.  After trying to correct some of the wrongs on Wikipedia’s Haymarket Riot webpage, Messer-Kruse was informed that “Wikipedia is not ‘truth,’ Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources.”  The Wikipedia editors continued to explain that “if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”  After publishing a historically accurate book, peer reviewed articles, and giving numerous lectures, Messer-Kruse tried yet again to fix the Wikipedia entry on the Haymarket Riot.  He was chastised for using his own work that promoted a fringe belief to back up his narrow view of the event.  The nail in the coffin came with another Wikipedia editor’s comments, “If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write ‘Most historians write the sky was green, but one says the sky was blue.’”  How ridiculous!  Famiglietti might believe that “Wikipedia holds a deep respect for a collaborative…process that is collectively more capable of producing ‘truth’ than any individual scholar,” but a general consensus does not equate with truth.  The general consensus in Nazi Germany was that Jews were disgusting, inferior creatures; but that does not mean that Jews are inferior or disgusting, nor does that mean that every person in Nazi Germany viewed Jews as disgusting and inferior.  It was however, the general consensus.  Does this mean that it was “truth?” Obviously not!  Just because a lot of people agree with you, does NOT make you write.  Wikipedia should rethink their policies instead of simply furthering falsehoods.   Consensus and truth are not the same thing.

When an individual commits an act, good or bad, others ask why. Nick Kowalczyk asks this question with the reenactors of the French and Indian War in mind with his “Embedded with the reenactors” article. His article shows both portions of the good and the bad that exist within the reenactment world. He is not afraid to make fun of it either. He writes, “Like drag shows, re-enactments hinge on sartorial panache. If a man’s otherwise period-correct outfit includes modern-day buttons or eyeglasses, it might as well have come from K-mart.” That quote demonstrates how strange the world of reenactment can seem to Kowalczyk at times, but it also comes to demonstrate an answer to his why question. Why do these individuals, mainly white, middle-aged men, want to reenact the French and Indian War? For individuals such as Old Hickory, a man who introduced Kowalczyk to reenactment, the answer comes from both his love to reliving the past and feeling as though he is out of place in the present. “’In real life I’m just a wallflower,’ Old Hickory confessed to me, before adding, on a brighter note, “but when I found reenacting everything changed.’” As Kowalczyk finds one answer on the reenactment battlefield, he uncovers other issues seen in on-line encyclopedia contributors and science programs; a dominating gender exists in reenactments.

In “Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List”, Noam Cohen summed up the basic structural foundation of Wikipedia when she said, “The difference between Wikipedia and other editorially created products is that Wikipedians are not professionals, they are only asked to bring what they know.” That those who edit and monitor Wikipedia are most likely not professionals can create a feeling of hostility seen in Timothy Messer-Kruse’s article. As Messer-Kruse explains, Wikipedia’s policies are created to be based off of popular consensus. This stems off of the belief that popular consensus is most likely based of reliable written sources, but that is not to say that less-popular views are ignored either. As discussed in “Weighing Consensus”, the issue that arises between Messer-Kruse and the Wikipedian editor is based on consensus. Seeing as the basic structure of Wikipedia is built on the belief that all individuals, professional or not, function within a continually evolving consensus of evidence. The consensus generated within Wikipedia has come from the natural growth of the website and it obviously has its inherent flaws within it.

Cohen does not only bring up a basic structural foundation for Wikipedia, but a larger issue of gender inequality witnessed in the online encyclopedia. Gender inequality present in Wikipedia may very well show the issues present in the United States. Catherine Orenstein was quoted as saying, “When you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own competencies.” The site may not be a direct battleground for gender equality or other issues, but it is a tool created for all to use, a tool that can help individuals or groups share their knowledge with others.

In reading this week’s articles about Wikipedia and reenacting, I had more than a few thoughts. So here I shall present what I was considering on what I felt were the two headliners.

First, in Embedded with the Reenactors I was stunned at the absolute disregard for any sort of political or ideological balance in Kowalczyk’s presentation of his experience. Such a treatment of what I had hoped to be an educated account of the experience actually made me quite angry at the outset. Here is an excerpt of what I felt at the time to be a particularly vile piece of writing:

The summer of 2009 was particularly ugly. President Obama had just entered office and banks too big to fail had been saved. As a country, we were debating whether health care was a basic right for everyone. A few days earlier, the government in Iraq had declared a national “Sovereignty Day” after U.S. forces handed over security responsibilities following the six-year war for oil and the American empire. In Afghanistan that day, a U.S. soldier wandered off his base without body armor or a weapon and was kidnapped and three troops died in an attack on the eastern front. And back at home, one had the feeling of even uglier times ahead, with Tea Partiers and racists chipping away at the goodwill and hope of the president’s election, his vow to end torture and close Guantanamo Bay, and it seemed certain the superhero candidate abruptly would confront the limits of his power in this age of government dysfunction and concentrated wealth. All of these things were on the minds of the re-enactors at Fort Niagara.

Without the French and Indian War, I was told in one re-enactor’s cascading cause-and-effect lecture, the British never would’ve taken hold of the American colonies, never would’ve quartered soldiers and taxed tea and killed Crispus Attucks; without the F&I there would’ve been no Washington, no Jefferson, no Lincoln, and therefore no Civil War, and so on.

Winston Churchill called the F&I the real first world war, someone added.

“It’s truly our nation’s forgotten war,” another mourned.

“Now that the Democrats are in office they’ll fund every useless social program and gut the things that really matter, like the national parks system.”

Someone else said, “This battle here is the reason today we ain’t speaking French.”

And one re-enactor offered this insight: “We’re people with an appreciation for history. We don’t just take The New York Times and go glug-glug-glug.”

Very few, if any, re-enactors recycled their bottles and cans.

My internal reaction to this was so intense and disturbing, I decided that it might be worth it to consider what it was that I was reacting to. I think that there are two things in this paragraph and initially that had turned me off to the article. First, Kowalczyk appears to be setting the scene and adding context, but his subtext is political drivel. In an article that purports to discuss the experience of a reenactor, and what it looks like on the field of battle he is trying to take issue with modern-day politics. He furthermore avoided any serious analysis of the questions that he asked. This sentiment was echoed by author of Abraham in Arms, Ann M. Little in her critique of Kowalczyk’s article. The second issue I took with that particular paragraph was that it appeared to be poking fun at the lesser humans that take part in reenactment, pointing out that they were republicans, proud of their non-French-speaking status and apparently of a conservative mindset. Kowalczyk, through the entire article, treated those men—many of whom are very well-studied in their history—as if they were some sort of oafish miscreants, of a lesser mental capacity than him.

Overall I did not feel as though Kowalczyk wrote a work worthy of being discussed at the academic level. It did not analyze the questions it asked. It did not consider the reality or position of the people it was supposedly observing, opting instead to portray the reenactors as stupid and petty, equating these things with conservatism and republicanism. Kowalczyk further failed to account for the possibility that reenacting might just not be for him. He wrote as if, because he didn’t like it and found it offputting, it must be wrong and not for anybody. In summary, at best Kowalczyk’s article was academically not viable, at worst it was abysmally poor journalism.

The second “Headliner” article was Dr. Messer-Kruse’s experience with Wikipedia. Like Kowalczyk, Messer-Kruse considered an experience that he had and wrote an article based on that. The difference between the two was that Messer-Kruse presented an analysis of his subject, rather than just spew political vitriol. In The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia Messer-Kruse discussed his experience trying to add expert information based on primary sources to Wikipedia. It was quite an adventure, often maddening and at the same time humorous to consider some of the responses to his information. It was somewhat excruciating reading  Wikipedia editors parrot responses about consensus and “reliable sources.” It raised questions about the viability of socially constructed truth, and its weaknesses where it fails to include minority views. Perhaps such an idea is better considered in long-term benefits than what it means in the immediate present. However, what it does mean in the present seems to be trying to steer society into a sort of giant singular mindset. An ideology that I am not prepared to accept, and neither might I think would the reenactors who think that people just drink-up “New York Times glug-glug-glug.”

Overall I have to think that with resources like reenacting and Wikipedia, historians must become more flexible in our approach to the public. We are seen by many as learned, but not practiced—as if we are disconnected from the harsh realities of the world. In many cases academics are to blame for such a public perception. If I were a person who had paid $25.00 to attend the French-Indian war reenactment, I would have been terribly offended reading Kowalczyk’s article. Instead of blaming those people for their ignorance, perhaps some introspection is in order. Why do these people spend $25.00 to see something that I feel is irrelevant and offensive? Could it be that they draw different connections with the past, not from ignorance, but from different experience? In the case of Wikipedia, it seems that it is really not a place for penetrating, avant-garde interpretive history, so why waste so much time complaining about it? It’s not like Wikipedia is suddenly going to change their stance. Perhaps a better approach would be to go with the flow for now, and win battles where they can be won.

This weeks articles discussed two sources average people use to access history: the historical reenactment and Wikipedia. One of the questions that kept popping up while reading the articles was are they providing a service or a disservice to history? They are both two very different ways to access historical information, yet there seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding their relevance or their honesty to history.

The reenactors for example are providing viewers with a visual on what historic battles were like. Sure, they are able to get the tactics down, the look of the uniforms and the weapons, and they are able to recreate the sequence in which the battles took place. However, are they providing the public with valuable information? “Embedded with the Reenactors” seemed to say no, they are not. Nick Kowalczyk mentioned how the battle seemed to be just a lot of yelling, gunfire and smoke. Well, how does that contribute to a positive understanding of history? Sure, war is terrible, but it didn’t seem so bad to the little kid who kept pretending to kill enemies on a battlefield. That part really jumped out at me and made me question whether or not the reenactments of these brutal battles is a service or not. As Little pointed out in “The Limited (and Queer?) Vision of American Historical Reenacting,” we have plenty of brutal battles in today’s world with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we feel the need to recreate those of nearly 300 years ago? While battles are important as far as how they shape history or a specific war, how often is that conveyed to the crowd watching a group of men charge at one another with weapons? Something is lacking within reenactments, especially if the only thing that occurs is yelling, gunfire and smoke. Add to that the SCV’s song about killing Yankees,  and you have a public history source that seems to lack interpretation and any positive influence. If done properly, reenactments are an important tool in bringing history to the public.

Wikipedia is another source that, although has its own set of problems,  contributes both a positive and negative service to historical study. As “Define Gender Gap” showed, Wikipedia is a male dominated website. Definitely a negative aspect because women should contribute and should feel invited to contribute more. However, I don’t feel that it is a gender issue in the sense that men don’t want women to contribute, it’s just that women feel they are not welcome to contribute from what Cohen said. Instead of complaining about how “Sex and the City” has little detail on each episode, change that. There were no situations mentioned where a woman tried to edit something, only to be turned away because of her gender. There are many articles on Wikipedia that men find interesting that are short and lacking in sufficient information. Articles on  medieval warriors like La Hire and Jean de Dunois, who fought alongside Joan of Arc in the Hundred Years War, have articles with little information on them. I did not feel the issue had to do with a sexist editing policy adopted by Wikipedia, it had more to do with women not feeling comfortable doing it, which is a shame.

However, the issue of Wikipedia’s honesty was tackled by “The Undue Weight of Truth on Wikipedia” and Weighing Consensus.” I understood Timothy Messer-Kruse’s frustration and argument, however I side with Wikipedia on the issue for many reasons. While I understand his position on the events of the Haymaker riot was the correct one, he expected Wikipedia to allow him to edit their article by using his own sources to replace a majority view with a minority view? Yes, Wikipedia will state the sky is green if the majority say it is, however the minority is using their own works to state the sky is blue. As Famiglietti stated in “Weighing Consensus,” the scholar may have an ax to grind or is wanting to find a soap box to then rant off their biased viewpoint. By acknowledging the large body of work scholars have done on a certain subject, Wikipedia really is respecting scholars in the sense that they take what the majority of them say seriously. There are many scholars out there trying to promote a biased agenda, trying to grind that ax, and how can you tell which ones are honest or not? The Wikipedia editors have to deal with many self-proclaimed experts, many of whom are probably frauds or conspiracy theorists. Allowing one scholar to change what a majority of scholars have said, all while using his own source, could lead way to conspiracy theorists changing articles on 9/11, or the Holocaust, because they have sources as well. While Wikipedia is not the place for scholars or students to research history, it provides the general public with an overview of what scholars have said about a certain subject. In that sense, it is doing history a service by bringing a consensus on World War II or The Great Depression to the public.

After reading the articles on reenactors and wiki’s, one question kept hanging in the back of my head saying, “do both the reenactors and wiki’s try to present a fraction of truth about how history is shown and defined and are they important?”  The possibility of this question can possibly be laid out by looking at how the articles present themselves.

Reenactors can be compared the cos-players (costume players) of today that a person can see at a sci-fi or comic book convention.    Both the reenactor and the cos-player take into account that paying attention to detail is paramount in either the event that they reenacting or the character that the cos-player is portraying.  You have to have a great deal of dedication to be a reenactor.  Trying to make everything ship shape and Bristol fashion always comes with a cost, but types of cloth can be exchanged, such as cotton for wool.  Polyester can be used for the breeches of old, unless you are the “hardcore” enthusiast.  Dedication is the creed for a person who is a reenactor.  They represent history as it was, even though some variances are given, such as water bottles, MRE’s and other possible luxuries.

Kowalczyk’s article implies that the reenactor is just play acting or how the mother saw the events as “men as conquerors”.   It is not playing and it is a great way for men and women to show how people in America’s past lived and worked and fought.

Ann Little in her blog clearly does not like reenactors or reenacting of historical events that were violent.  One has to wonder if she has ever been to the reenactment of a non-violent historic event.  There are many, and yes there is the excitement of being a reenactor, but events like the crossing of the Snake River in Glens Ferry comes to mind.   I feel that she was right in saying that reenactment of certain things like the woman saying that she wished she had lived during the time of Gone with the Wind, was very profound.  Yes, she might think it would be fun as a privileged, white plantation owner, but her African American friend pointed out the blunt truth that she would have been her slave.

Timothy Messer-Kruse showed in his article on how he tried to fight the good fight and lost.  As a published author on the Chicago Haymarket riots, it seems totally absurd that the editors of Wikipedia would not acknowledge his works and belittled him in the process of editing the Wiki on this subject.    As an expert, did he over step his bounds in trying to edit the article to present the information as accurate?  I do not think he did and with two books being published on the matter the editors should think so too.  Someone had a title (editor), and used that title as a use of power to show the expert that he could not make the change unless “he” (editor) said so.

Wiki’s and reenators do portray history as truthfully as possible and with good intent.  Accuracy is vital and the importance for both is essential.  Historians base their work on primary sources, not secondary ones.

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.