Applied History

By the time I finished reading Kowalczyk’s “Embedded with Reenactors,” I was fired up and ready to rant about it. And then, I found that Historiann did it for me. And, in a way, so did The Atlantic. As I began, Kowalczyk’s article ignited a couple of important questions for me: Is there a particular reason why the majority of these reenactors are middle-aged white dudes? Also, does the popularity of reenactment rise and fall based on the political and social realities of present time?

Don’t even get me started on the masculinity angle of these articles. You’ll get a blog post in the form of a dissertation.

Historiann’s article (by far my favorite piece this week) said it best: “Romanticizing the past, like reenacting, is a White thing.” And I think this is where I get hung up most on the idea of it all. Going back and romanticizing a time in which everything sucked for everyone but you is not something I could ever get behind. How many Civil War reenactors go out to the battlefield fired up to pretend to fight to free the slaves? (Okay, yes, I know, how many actually did in 1862, either…) I think that’s why I love Hamilton, the musical – sorry, Joe – it’s thoughtful reenactment: perhaps not accurate, but it gets as close to romanticization as possible, while using a cast made up of persons of color to highlight exactly why romanticizing history is problematic.

The Atlantic’s “Why doesn’t anyone think it’s cool to dress up like a Confederate soldier anymore?” touched on my question about addressing the present a little bit. In order to allow reenactments to survive into later generations, the reasons for it have to stay relevant. The obsession with the Civil War in the 1960s wasn’t just because it was 100 years – it was because the country was once again divided. In a different Atlantic article linked from the first, the same author, Kevin Levin, talks about how many bastions of southern (cough, white) pride once again felt threatened by the state of racial affairs in the United States, in the 60s. To celebrate the Civil War was to celebrate a heroic lost cause, and to perhaps even prepare to finish the job for good this time. The next generation of, um, prideful celebrants of heritage, are a little more bold in their remembrances than just wearing old military costumes and playing pretend. They are, terrifyingly, playing the game for real. I would be interested to know if any of them have fathers or grandfathers who are reenactors.

This also falls to the fact that Confederate memorials are being taken down, public places are being renamed, and “heroes” are remembered for what/who they really were. The reality is that social views are changing, and the volume of mainstream dialogue about how harmful celebrating things like, you know, racist murderers, is not so cool, is getting louder.

As for the Wikipedia gender gap… pffft.. shocker, there. People tell us that you can use Wiki to get a leg up on your research, as long as you scroll down to the bottom and look at/use the sources. I’ve spent months researching one particular person and just the other day decided to take a look at what wikipedia has to say about her: paragraphs of narrative with no sources. Cool. So how to professionals get in there, with the hope of presenting real, quality research to the public, and are denied? Sigh. This is why I don’t even take a glance: not just to avoid finding inaccurate information, but to also avoid going into a blind rage at the way that the site itself is run.

This was a long one. My bad.

I think historical re-enactment serves a purpose to attract crowds to historical places to put them, if only for a few moments, into the era they are learning and exploring. I remember watching a civil war union soldier demonstrate the different positions and instructions in rank and file movements at Fort Pulaski and other civil war forts around the south. Castile de San Marcos did a Spanish canon firing demonstration at the Castile every hour all in Spanish. These presentations were done by Park Service Interpretive Rangers, which had knowledge and history of the areas. Do I think that regular people who decide to do re-enactments are not qualified to do them? No. I think some of them really believe that it gives them a purpose in life and they take it to the next level by actually living the life style as authentically as possible. Re-enactment to me is no different than people who go to comic con dressing up to be their favorite super hero. I do think there is some differences in dressing up and re-enacting a historical event over a dressing up and being a super hero. But in the end, you are dressing up and pretending to be something you’re not, which allows people to escape their boring day jobs and do something they feel passionate about. Nick Kowalczyk article about being embedded with re-enactors says it best: “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.”[1] I feel that re-enactment is a worthy sub culture that does serve a purpose in some regards as long as it is historically correct.

The Historiann article did bring up good points on Nick’s article in regards to if as a United States citizen, you want to get the full idea of battle and war why not join in the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan? This article also brings a good point on race that white people seem to want to relive the past more than other races. “Perhaps this is what makes me uncomfortable about reenactors—their interest in reenacting violent events (warfare, principally) which from the first Anglo-Indian wars of the seventeenth century through our modern wars, were either explicitly racialized wars (most Anglo-Indian wars, he Mexican War, and the wars waged by the Frontier Army against Native Americans) or wars that mobilized ethnic difference and white racism in the war effort (as in World War II and the war with Japan, the Vietnam War, and Iraq and Afghanistan).” [2] I have never thought about this perspective before but it does make sense when it comes to reenactments that it is mostly a white thing.

The Wikipedia articles made me think and ponder why women would be more hesitant to contribute to an online forum their opinions? I know and have been influenced, even had my views changed, by many talented and intelligent women in my life. Then I thought back to the conversations we all have had in this class and things I have read and heard on National Public Radio (NPR). Women get harassed online and in society by men who for reason or another can’t allow women to share their opinions and knowledge through different online resources. To see first-hand how women are treated in other countries I have been to, then to come home and see that through the internet and social media this is happening in the United States angers me.

[1] Kowalczyk, Nick. “Embedded with the reenactors.” Salon. Sunday, Jan. 8, 2012.

[2] “The Limited (and queer?) vision of American historical reenacting.” Historiann. January 9, 2012.

I began this blog by thinking of reenactors as people unable to cope with modern-day realities. Then I have an “aha!” moment where I came to see reenactors in the context of those who believe that old buildings are better and more important than new buildings. For me, saving old buildings of historical significance makes sense, but not reenacting. Why? I’m dodging the answer for lack of space, but it is worth exploring.

Reenactors seem to long for a world where their white-male privilege remains intact and where they can equate themselves to people they believe are tougher and untainted by modernity. Kowalczyk and Historiann reinforce this idea when they say reenacting is, “more widespread among white men…Romanticizing the past is a White thing.” While Kowalczyk’s Old Hickory and Captain Titus may be the most extreme examples, they are separated from most reenactors only by degrees.  In the few examples given of women participating, their roles seem to reinforce this image of white-male dominance.

Dominant white-males appear to be central to Levin’s article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The article also highlights the ambivalence to these re-enactments as fewer reenactors and spectators seem to indicate a backlash against this view of history. Levin notes this may be true, if for no other reason than, “What we do know is that the SCV has done everything in its power over the past few years to alienate reasonable people.” It seems clear that these folks want a whitewashed history so as to maintain their sense of superiority and purity. Dillon Ruth is a reflection of their problem.

I was both disturbed and encouraged by the efforts to make Wikipedia more accurate. The efforts to curate articles were encouraging, but the weighting of articles seems to slow down updating articles with the latest scholarship, as noted in Messer-Kruse’s piece. However, I do feel that Famiglietti made a good case for the current system, which constantly reviews ways to improve. The lack of diversity among content and content-authors is depressing. In this community, I thought there would be more acceptance of women and female-centered content. It would be interesting to know, is this a gender issue or is minority-related content and minority generate content also under-represented? If yes, all of us have work to do.

“Embedded with the reenactors” stirred some strong feelings for me. As I’ve said before, I love Old Fort Niagra. Reading Kolwalczyk’s description took me back. Which is why I think reenacting is popular with certain people, a yearning for something that might be missing in their lives at that moment. That’s not to say that everyone who reenacts is missing something in their lives, but the way the “hobby” is portrayed, that’s what it looks like from over here.
Regarding wearing Confederate grey, I think less people wear it these days because no one wants to play on the loosing team. But all joking aside, that article illustrated some of the reasons reenacting is popular with an older whiter crowd. They came of age in the ’60s, when there were three television channels, and nothing much else to do besides play outside. And what better to do than rehash the days of “Cowboys and Indians”, or the Rough Riders up San Juan hill, or Pickett’s charge.
But to me, reenacting, as it is presented in Kolwalczyk’s article, is worshiping at the altar of toxic masculinity. Having just read Kolwalczyk’s piece that Ann Little recommends, I think he might believe it too. And perhaps that’s why there aren’t reenactments of suffragettes. And maybe the wounds are still too fresh to have reenactments of the civil rights struggle, especially in the wake of current “situations”. Reenactments “thumb their noses” at the losers, which is why French-Canadians try to disrupt the reenactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and Northern Irish Catholics get so incensed when Northern Irish Protestants march through their neighborhoods on the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne.
With regards to Wikipedia, I have no words. It is an online encyclopedia, and given the way it is set up there has to be some kind of regulation. But credentials should count for something.

These articles bring up some good points on how to think about history done from non-historians.  Where do we draw the line on scholarly authority?  Are sound resources the key in the debate?  I feel like I change my mind on that subject weekly and do not ever have a concrete opinion on the matter.

With reenacting, I appreciate that on any one battlefield you can have casual enthusiasts who are just there to have fun mixed in with the hard-cores who are particularly proud of their authenticity and dedication.  As brought up in “The Limited (and Queer?) Vision of American Historical Reenacting”, much of this reenacting is done by older, white men romanticizing the past.  It makes me wonder how many men don their reenactor roles to “escape” into a hyper-masculine world against a changing society that may seem “threatening” to them.  I’m sure many are passionate about history, but to some maybe only in a way that maintains white patriarchy.  The few articles referencing reenacting made me think of the book that some of us read last semester titled Confederates in the Attic, which addressed the undying nature of the “War of Northern Aggression” to Southerners.  To many, reenacting connected them to their heritage and a simpler, better time.  The Civil War refuses to die because the war is still so personal.  This book was published in 1998, so I’m wondering if between 1998 and 2012, perhaps the Civil War mania began to lessen as “Why Doesn’t Anyone Think It’s Cool to Dress up like a Confederate Soldier Anymore?” suggests with dwindling attendance at Sons of Confederate Veterans events.

Another side note on “The Limited (and Queer?) Vision of American Historical Reenacting”, a remark was made that maybe in the future we will see women and minorities reenact struggles and confrontations in the future.  This comment reminded me of people who had dressed up to participate in the Women’s March in January.  Particularly, I thought of a few women I saw dressed up at Victorian Suffragettes.  I do not know if those women would consider themselves reenactors, but I thought it was a step in the direction that the articles was talking about, and an example of connecting yourself to history to prove a point.

Regarding Wikipedia, all of the information was new to me, feeding into the statistic that women are not as active contributing as men.  Since I have never tried to edit an article, I did not know the content and source guidelines.  It does make me feel better about getting quick facts and an overview since there are guidelines in place to deter internet trolls, but I can understand Messer-Kruse’s frustrations.  Being an expert in your field and then told that you do not have the right kind of sources to edit a Wikipedia article would drive anyone crazy.

Although I am aware that historical preservation costs money, I found that much of second half of the book was an attempt to give historians a financial argument as to why it could behoove someone. That being said, I find it ridiculous that people not only want, but actually expect a financial gain as a reason not to destroy historical buildings. Even my favorite part of the second half of the book, Revitalizing Downtown, felt littered with facts like “The Main Street Center recently tabulated that the program led to the rehabilitation of 60,000 buildings (instant happy thought for me, over 174,000 jobs, and to $35 for every $1 spent.” (174) Why do we still look at our collective history in dollars and cents rather than with just sense?

Page 201 clearly shows a list of an entire budget of a project, including tax benefits of doing such a rehab. To me, if you don’t want to live in a historic district ( or own a business in one), then by all means do not. If you do, I feel it ridiculous that it takes an entire spreadsheet of cost accounting to help someone determine…. what exactly? Whether or not or history has value?

The other thought that consistently came up for me was that, what about areas that are historic to a certain group of people but are overlooked by others? With the idea of a commission in charge of what is historical and what is not, what about places like Garden City, known for its beautiful gardens…. that were built and maintained by the Chinese who, as second class citizens of their time, have conveniently been written out of that narrative? Those that have power are the only ones that seemingly can tell us what has history and what does not. Only fairly recently has history started to put into the narrative the significance of many race, class, and gender in the building of America. With this in mind I would hate to lose the history of these other disenfranchised groups simply because they were disenfranchised.