Why You (We) Do This II

Well, I’m back, sort of. Not 100% but I can write some. Chuck asked about the criticisms I mentioned early on, so I thought that might be a good place to start this week.

Do reenactors sanitize the carnage of battles? In my opinion, that has to be a big yes, unless we actually want to start shooting people for the spectators. However, I still think that it begs the question of whether we are serving our mission to the public by doing so. It brings to mind the story (possibly apocryphal) of the reenactor who got pig guts from a butcher shop; put them under his shirt in a plastic bag, and then pretended to be gut shot after strategically placing himself near the crowd. As soldiers were supposedly want to do under such circumstances, he tore open his shirt (and the bag) and the guts spilled out, causing screams, vomiting and fainting among the spectators.

Don’t know if that really happened or not, but you probably won’t get a lot of spectators out to your events if you do a lot of that. I don’t think the crowds want to see really graphic violence (unless maybe the occasional amputation) even if we could safely provide it. They are more interested in seeing a presentation of what happened in a battle and then walking through the camps and seeing, smelling and touching the camp life. This is where we should transition into living history and do a good job of showing them what period life was like, once you have ‘hooked’ them with a battle reenactment. This is also where I believe many Civil War units fall down by not having good period camps to show off. At least for our Federal camp, it is usually a group of tents tightly buttoned up to hide the coolers, cots and other anachronisms. There isn’t much else to look at. How many guys go to any trouble any more to develop a good living history impression anymore? You don’t see it as much in the mainstream Federal camps. You are more likely to see 2-liter Pepsi bottles. (I’m starting to rant) I also think that this hurts our recruiting over the long run. Why should someone be interested in starting a hobby that doesn’t look interesting?

Since I don’t get around as well as I used to, I rarely make it to a Confederate camp, so I can’t speak for the Confederate side. Let’s hear some views from the Rebel side about this.

Overall, I guess I could sum up my views this way, could we do a better job with the battles? Yes, but it varies from event to event. Could we have less farby camps as well? Yep. It would involve doing some talking among ourselves and doing some planning and probably bringing a few more things. Anyone who has seen my WWII living history display knows that I tend to travel heavy. And, I understand not everybody can do a lot of this, particularly the older folks.

P.S. I didn’t really get into discussing WWII battle reenactments as they are usually non-spectated and the ones which are spectated ( at Reading Air Show for example) seem to have the approval of the vets in attendance and I figure that their opinion is the one that really counts.

Posted

in

by

Jim Barnes

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “Why You (We) Do This II”

  1. Misha Avatar
    Misha

    Hey Jim,

    You are really on stride here. Yes, you do travel heavy and I always seem to bring the rain forcing you and John (Evan) to grab the tarps. Your displays really draw them in and I too find them fascinating. Anyway, being new to the scene as you know I am, I can take more of an outsiders point of view here. I enjoy the displays but I find “spartan” in the living quarters more realistic. I don’t always see this and it bothers me when I see office boxes and plastic soda bottles and convience store wrappers lying around. Wood rather than aluminum cots would be more appropriate as well. I’m not pointing to our unit so much here but I do wander through the camps and see things from all that aren’t on the mark.
    Consider that many of these armies we reenact were on the move. “Spartan is best.” Even when I was fortunate enough to spend 30 days (max) in one area during my time in service (in the field at least) we didn’t have a lot of stuff haning around and always kept things ready to pick up and move. Yeah we would have a little cooking area, some tents and a place to wash set up, maybe a building appropriated but we wouldn’t be mulling around either. There would be guard duty/perimeter watch. Sure space is limited, esp at living history events, but it is something that is doable and adds to the realism. It was something I tried to present at the door of out little school house at OBV until the sun got the better of me.
    I hope I’m not getting off base here.

    As a visitor, the campsites I find best are the ones that get the public involved. Like we try to present to folks at 193rd events: “come on in, we’ll sign you up, eat our borscht, break bread with us, come around the camp fire and talk of glory.” Most people like to interact but are too shy to come up and get involved in it. Not all reenactors go out of their way to make them feel welcomed either. I feel as a reenactor I’m there to learn, to teach, and to have a great time and I hope it rubs off on the public and my fellow reenactors alike.

    As you can tell by this I like to talk. We also have to make the newer members feel welcomed as it takes time and money to build a good impression so the experienced guys can help here by guiding the newer ones along not asserting there ideas on them. Cliques are bad for reenacting, too. Sure it happens in the service as well sometimes but these are not true units, at least not the ones you go into battle with. I’ve experienced both…I know who my brothers are and would trust my life. If I should have fallen they would have taken care of mine as their own. we had that understanding. Hopefully this comraderie can come through in reenactment. That’s realism but then again perhaps it’s idealism…there’s something to chew on.

  2. Chuck Critchfield Avatar
    Chuck Critchfield

    Yes, I guess the farby battles question was rhetorical…..we do sanitize. Although I have seen some hospital scenes recreated that were just a bit too real for me. The size of the armies and the battlefield lead to some battles that are far from the real thing. Droop is a good example. SO few reeancators and so little ground. It doesn’t give the crowd any realisitic perspective.

    And of course my pet peeve. Getting within 50 yards of the enemy and blasting away. 450 yards were probably more realistic.

    I agree our camps could be better. That’s an age old argument and one which some reenactors get upset about. It seems we could strike a balance between a hard core camp and the 21st century camp.

    Another issue which bothers me a bit is reenacting during a time when our nation’s troops are actually engaged in combat. During the first Gulf War, I refused to participate. I didn’t think it right. Well that war didn’t last long enough to cause me to miss an event. Then afterwards some vets of that conflict said that they appreciated my thoughts, but really didn’t mind or even think twice about reenacting taking place during the war. Still I wonder about it now.

    I think the Civil War vets, for what I have read wanted to be remembered. They wanted the nation to remember the sacrifices they made and they wanted the nation to confirm what they did was right and what they fought for was necessary. Certainly most would look at reeancting as a way of remembering and honoring what they did.

  3. Jim Barnes Avatar
    Jim Barnes

    More good comments! This subject is so big, that just when I think I have one aspect nailed down, someone brings up another nuance that takes us up another relevant alley. It’s like wrestling with an amoeba! But that is great. We’re getting some stuff out here.

    When I was ranting about the CW camp, I had a particular camp in mind, but the same basic rules can apply. A Civil War unit would carry enough to do what it had to do at that time. If on a campaign, it would be light and more primitive. If they were representing a garrison unit, even for a short time, they would have more equipment, boxes and etc. around the camp. For example, period axes and even a crosscut saw. When they took the rails off Farmer Smith’s fenceline, they would want to cut them up to usable length before the provost caught them! Period cooking equipment is another example. They had to eat and if they were in one place for a while, it would probably be more elaborate, even if they had to requisition it from Rebel civilians.

    As Misha points out, I have a large WWII setup. I think this may be a reaction to the fact that the Fritzes always have so much stuff for the public to look at, while we poor proletarians come out somewhat on the short end, particularly with vehicles. Also, since I am out here away from most other Red Army reenactors, I have had to be pretty self-sufficient as far as collections go for local events. (Although, I do have some great volunteers helping me here.)

    I think there are two approaches to living history and both are valid. One is the Spartan approach which Misha mentions. This gives the average spectator a picture of what life was really like for the average grunt and is very real.

    The second is what I will call the ‘museum’ approach. It is kind of a case of “I’ve got it and I would like to share the experience with everybody else,” thing. I may go overboard, but I think there is room for both philosophies.

    Maybe the best rule of thumb is to ask yourself, “Does this help in some way to really bring history alive to the public?” If the answer is yes, then we probably are living up to the goal of memorializing the brave, fascinating people we represent at our various events.

  4. Chuck Critchfield Avatar
    Chuck Critchfield

    From a strictly personal view (not worrying about the public or education view) I always was drawn to the campaign look. At several events, I have camped a weekend with what I could carry in on my back….although that was always a bit more than the real CW soldier would have carried. To me, that was a bit more realistic which to me, was more of a tribute to the soldiers. But there were also garrison troops. A garrison impression, I guess, was no less realistic.

    The public always seemed impressed with the fact that CW soldier on the march, lived with what he could carry on his back.

    I always had fun on the preservation marches. Living under the stars. Of course it never rained on these marches. And they never lasted more than a couple days. But they were fun none the less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.