• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Recent article on the slow-creep of eliminating historic reenactments (this one's in Pennsylvannia)...

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
No one is banning reenacting and any discussion of that happening is clearly misinformation. You can tell a lot about who posts and comments on these type of threads in argument of the changes because it's a strong indicator of one's disconnect with actual living history and demonstrates a high probably that one is a non participant.

The national park service adopted the same policy many decades ago yet some of the better living history programming I've been apart of is at national military parks. A state entity aligning their policy with the national park service isn't going to disappear living history, but will most likely only strengthen it for the better. I recently was invited to participate in a larger than normal 160th Gettysburg national event on private property this summer. When I found out that a living history event is going on at the national park the weekend before, I altered my plans because battles are not living history. I'd rather be a part of the battlefield walk and living history encampment at the park than participate in a farby battle.

Of all the things people can choose to try and recreate accurately, a force on force battle is at the bottom of the list. It's nearly impossible to accurately produce the numbers, movements, carnage, trauma, &ct. Then you have to be concerned with safety, something in my experience greatly lacking in almost every engagement that I've participated in, despite the copious lip service paid thereto. Furthermore, anyone who has ever beared witness to actual combat can tell you, it's not something you'd actually want to witness or repeat, and certainly not something to show the public at a public family event. This is the reason we have advisories for movies and TV programming who's not suffering from inaccuracies in demonstration of the actualities of war thanks to post editing and special effects, something cost prohibitive to large scale reenactments. Despite these limitations, the traditional inaccuracies of large scale battle reenactments, and the questionable appropriateness of doing so, it's amazingly always those who profess great strides in progressivism and accuracy in their portrayals that are the first to want to get right to the most inaccurate thing one can do.

Alternatively, what can be done accurately is much more various and easier to accomplish. 99 percent of any soldier's experience is the minutia of daily life, which is the actual story deserving to be told, but rarely understood by most hobbyists lacking the abilities to effectively engage a consuming public. If I'm the programming director at an historic site, I'm going to invite 5 living history educators that can effectively teach rather than 500 fudds just out to party and get their larp on. Accordingly, 99 percent of history is probably something having little to do with war. Civilian living historians have been continually marginalized though the decades and I find that unacceptable. That will continue to change for the better with these alterations of policy.

So in short, not only is this change of policy a move in the right direction, it will open up funding that will find it's way to improvements in living history programming. It's a movement that, as one who makes a living at public history, I can definitely stand behind.
 
Hmmm...Dear Beau Robbins,
This may get me kicked off TMF, but I am going out on a limb and making the assumption that the first paragraph of your reply was fired in my direction...I am now becoming an old man, but I've had a good run in life, especially in pursuing my interests in various historic time periods over the years: I have done black powder hunting/buckskinning since I was in my teens (back then, all I wanted was to move to the Rockies and become a Mountain Man), including meeting John Baird out in Big Timber back in the late 70's and attending the Paradise Valley Rendezvous in Montana around that time (wish I still had the half-stock Hawken that I bought made by a Mr. Ritchey/Ritchie(?)...in the mid-1990's, I did Plains Indian Wars reinacting (camped at the Fort Union Rendezvous, "Buffalo Days Indian Fight" out in Wyoming, as well as having the privilege to participate one time in the annual reinactment of the Battle of the Little Bighorn held on the Realbird property along the Little Bighorn River in 1996) as a Cheyenne warrior, along with American Indian educational presentations to school groups, etc.. Looking back, I think I may have been an early casualty of the "woke/cultural appropriation" movement, as I was set to give a lecture on Plains Indian culture (including setting up my 16' Cheyenne-style tipi) at a Chicago Forest Preserve event around 1997, when I was driven out by a fellow who claimed to be of Cheyenne lineage; he told me I had no right to be there, as I was not American Indian, so as not to cause any further ruckus/tensions, I left. I did some Jacobite-era reinactments in Ohio as a Scottish highlander and was lucky to purchase some fine items made by Donnie Shearer as part of my kit. During that time, I built a couple of French Tulles from TOTW kits, and now am putting together some flintlocks for the grandkids and one last hurrah with a New England Colonial fowler kit from Chambers.
As for your snarky comment about us unwashed masses making uninformed posts on this Forum, I am no dilettante in the realm of historical reinacting; as for this topic, I suspect that the tide is turning against allowing the participation of non-indigenous reinactors at events such as the annual Little Big Horn reinactment, but I could be wrong.
 
I wasn't being snarky and never mentioned unwashed masses or accused anyone of being uninformed. I am completely unaware of how your unarguably vast and varied living history career effects Pennsylvania state policies. Another thing I have written nothing about are the policies that you're referencing about sites limiting one's living history capabilities based on ethnicity. While I personally only know of only two institutions that practice this, it's obviously rooted in racist mentality when not equally applied to all portrayals. I know of no institutions that enact policies applicable to all races or ethnicities.

What I was referencing with my above post was the article referenced by you referring to the discontinuance of force on force battle reenacting in PA. Again this is a move in the right direction and something I can get behind, hopefully to be replaced with quality living history programming and other methods of interpretation.
 
The Battle of Brandywine site I mentioned in this thread is OK for the time being, as the enactment site is at a County Park, and the adjacent large acreage is privately owned BY A RE-ENACTOR! How about that? It's the actual site of the historical fighting (in part) and there's three graves there from the Battle time. I clearly recall the Federal ban on force-upon-force at Parks during the Bi-Cen, and the distance that had to be kept between "opposing" forces was humongous.
 
No one is banning reenacting and any discussion of that happening is clearly misinformation. You can tell a lot about who posts and comments on these type of threads in argument of the changes because it's a strong indicator of one's disconnect with actual living history and demonstrates a high probably that one is a non participant.

The national park service adopted the same policy many decades ago yet some of the better living history programming I've been apart of is at national military parks. A state entity aligning their policy with the national park service isn't going to disappear living history, but will most likely only strengthen it for the better. I recently was invited to participate in a larger than normal 160th Gettysburg national event on private property this summer. When I found out that a living history event is going on at the national park the weekend before, I altered my plans because battles are not living history. I'd rather be a part of the battlefield walk and living history encampment at the park than participate in a farby battle.

Of all the things people can choose to try and recreate accurately, a force on force battle is at the bottom of the list. It's nearly impossible to accurately produce the numbers, movements, carnage, trauma, &ct. Then you have to be concerned with safety, something in my experience greatly lacking in almost every engagement that I've participated in, despite the copious lip service paid thereto. Furthermore, anyone who has ever beared witness to actual combat can tell you, it's not something you'd actually want to witness or repeat, and certainly not something to show the public at a public family event. This is the reason we have advisories for movies and TV programming who's not suffering from inaccuracies in demonstration of the actualities of war thanks to post editing and special effects, something cost prohibitive to large scale reenactments. Despite these limitations, the traditional inaccuracies of large scale battle reenactments, and the questionable appropriateness of doing so, it's amazingly always those who profess great strides in progressivism and accuracy in their portrayals that are the first to want to get right to the most inaccurate thing one can do.

Alternatively, what can be done accurately is much more various and easier to accomplish. 99 percent of any soldier's experience is the minutia of daily life, which is the actual story deserving to be told, but rarely understood by most hobbyists lacking the abilities to effectively engage a consuming public. If I'm the programming director at an historic site, I'm going to invite 5 living history educators that can effectively teach rather than 500 fudds just out to party and get their larp on. Accordingly, 99 percent of history is probably something having little to do with war. Civilian living historians have been continually marginalized though the decades and I find that unacceptable. That will continue to change for the better with these alterations of policy.

So in short, not only is this change of policy a move in the right direction, it will open up funding that will find it's way to improvements in living history programming. It's a movement that, as one who makes a living at public history, I can definitely stand behind.
What your missing is a lot of visitors to these events do come for the battle scenes, as a civil war - war between the states or whatever you want to reference it as. And a 25-year veteran of these events, all one has to do is see the number of spectators watching the battle scenes. vs the camp Wanders, you are correct in the actual battles that are represented and the logistics - casualties involved and those actual related issues, and yes, every solider is aware of the down times. But then I guess if you just sit in camp and curl Yer hair there's a place for that also. Call it what it is a move by the political left to chip one more piece of the stone away we reference as AMERICIAN HISTORY.
 
What your missing is a lot of visitors to these events do come for the battle scenes, as a civil war - war between the states or whatever you want to reference it as. And a 25-year veteran of these events, all one has to do is see the number of spectators watching the battle scenes. vs the camp Wanders, you are correct in the actual battles that are represented and the logistics - casualties involved and those actual related issues, and yes, every solider is aware of the down times. But then I guess if you just sit in camp and curl Yer hair there's a place for that also. Call it what it is a move by the political left to chip one more piece of the stone away we reference as AMERICIAN HISTORY.
Very well said and very true. Take away history.....then repeat it!!! Stupid is as stupid does.....
 
I'd be interested in tracking spectatorship to battle reenactments. From my perspective, people really aren't coming to battle centric events. Consider as well, most progressive battle centric events that I'm aware of aren't even open to the public. There are more and more reenactments closed off from the public view, which objectively have nothing to offer in the way of public education. Even when they are, the numbers just aren't there compared to smaller living history events. The one I attended in Savannah just this weekend we had almost 2500 come through the gate on Saturday alone, whereas the much larger battle of Brandywine near Philly had but several hundreds throughout the weekend. Comparatively in the civil war genre, the battle of Cedar Mountain had a few dozen spectators.

So the events that I'm seeing that are open to the public, they're not bringing in the numbers to make them worth the effort. Perhaps it's just different where you're at.
 
Don't know about the more southern events, but the big civil war events such as the anniversary events of Gettysburg, Antietam, Cedar Creek always have big turn outs at least while I was involved in the hobby. As to the periods prior to the civil war I have never been involved in a battle representation they were more a living history encampment, or just a period correct as can be camping trip but saying that there were structured shooting matches especially at Ft. Frederick market faire. I participate in a private mini rondy every Oct. at Ft. Loudon Pa. we also have a blanket shoot and surprisingly there is a fair number of visitors that come by So, I would guess the interest is there from the general population who visit those type of events but the political atmosphere is attempting to girdle the actual intent of the historians.
 
No one is banning reenacting and any discussion of that happening is clearly misinformation. You can tell a lot about who posts and comments on these type of threads in argument of the changes because it's a strong indicator of one's disconnect with actual living history and demonstrates a high probably that one is a non participant.

The national park service adopted the same policy many decades ago yet some of the better living history programming I've been apart of is at national military parks. A state entity aligning their policy with the national park service isn't going to disappear living history, but will most likely only strengthen it for the better. I recently was invited to participate in a larger than normal 160th Gettysburg national event on private property this summer. When I found out that a living history event is going on at the national park the weekend before, I altered my plans because battles are not living history. I'd rather be a part of the battlefield walk and living history encampment at the park than participate in a farby battle.

Of all the things people can choose to try and recreate accurately, a force on force battle is at the bottom of the list. It's nearly impossible to accurately produce the numbers, movements, carnage, trauma, &ct. Then you have to be concerned with safety, something in my experience greatly lacking in almost every engagement that I've participated in, despite the copious lip service paid thereto. Furthermore, anyone who has ever beared witness to actual combat can tell you, it's not something you'd actually want to witness or repeat, and certainly not something to show the public at a public family event. This is the reason we have advisories for movies and TV programming who's not suffering from inaccuracies in demonstration of the actualities of war thanks to post editing and special effects, something cost prohibitive to large scale reenactments. Despite these limitations, the traditional inaccuracies of large scale battle reenactments, and the questionable appropriateness of doing so, it's amazingly always those who profess great strides in progressivism and accuracy in their portrayals that are the first to want to get right to the most inaccurate thing one can do.

Alternatively, what can be done accurately is much more various and easier to accomplish. 99 percent of any soldier's experience is the minutia of daily life, which is the actual story deserving to be told, but rarely understood by most hobbyists lacking the abilities to effectively engage a consuming public. If I'm the programming director at an historic site, I'm going to invite 5 living history educators that can effectively teach rather than 500 fudds just out to party and get their larp on. Accordingly, 99 percent of history is probably something having little to do with war. Civilian living historians have been continually marginalized though the decades and I find that unacceptable. That will continue to change for the better with these alterations of policy.

So in short, not only is this change of policy a move in the right direction, it will open up funding that will find it's way to improvements in living history programming. It's a movement that, as one who makes a living at public history, I can definitely stand behind.
Beau, I’m interested in the living history you referred to the week before the 160th. Could you provide a link to the event? Thanks, Tom Wait Beau, is it the url “160thbattleofgettysburg.org”?
 
Yeah. So the big private property battle is the week before. On the actual anniversary weekend will be the typical battlefield walks around the Natl park. I think your domain is the right one.
 
No one is banning reenacting and any discussion of that happening is clearly misinformation. You can tell a lot about who posts and comments on these type of threads in argument of the changes because it's a strong indicator of one's disconnect with actual living history and demonstrates a high probably that one is a non participant.

The national park service adopted the same policy many decades ago yet some of the better living history programming I've been apart of is at national military parks. A state entity aligning their policy with the national park service isn't going to disappear living history, but will most likely only strengthen it for the better. I recently was invited to participate in a larger than normal 160th Gettysburg national event on private property this summer. When I found out that a living history event is going on at the national park the weekend before, I altered my plans because battles are not living history. I'd rather be a part of the battlefield walk and living history encampment at the park than participate in a farby battle.

Of all the things people can choose to try and recreate accurately, a force on force battle is at the bottom of the list. It's nearly impossible to accurately produce the numbers, movements, carnage, trauma, &ct. Then you have to be concerned with safety, something in my experience greatly lacking in almost every engagement that I've participated in, despite the copious lip service paid thereto. Furthermore, anyone who has ever beared witness to actual combat can tell you, it's not something you'd actually want to witness or repeat, and certainly not something to show the public at a public family event. This is the reason we have advisories for movies and TV programming who's not suffering from inaccuracies in demonstration of the actualities of war thanks to post editing and special effects, something cost prohibitive to large scale reenactments. Despite these limitations, the traditional inaccuracies of large scale battle reenactments, and the questionable appropriateness of doing so, it's amazingly always those who profess great strides in progressivism and accuracy in their portrayals that are the first to want to get right to the most inaccurate thing one can do.

Alternatively, what can be done accurately is much more various and easier to accomplish. 99 percent of any soldier's experience is the minutia of daily life, which is the actual story deserving to be told, but rarely understood by most hobbyists lacking the abilities to effectively engage a consuming public. If I'm the programming director at an historic site, I'm going to invite 5 living history educators that can effectively teach rather than 500 fudds just out to party and get their larp on. Accordingly, 99 percent of history is probably something having little to do with war. Civilian living historians have been continually marginalized though the decades and I find that unacceptable. That will continue to change for the better with these alterations of policy.

So in short, not only is this change of policy a move in the right direction, it will open up funding that will find it's way to improvements in living history programming. It's a movement that, as one who makes a living at public history, I can definitely stand behind.
Who are you? You don’t speak for all of us and in fact, your post is just another example of elite, leftist, woke know-it-alls. You go do your stand-and-preen events and don’t tell the rest of us what to do. Is a big hobby, but when one group of doofus’ think that they can tell others what to do??? No.

And just for the record, people don’t go to museums or historical places to look at quilts and pottery… and at historical events, they don’t want to see stand-and-preen dorks bloviating about dumb things. They want to see battle reenactments and such.

YOU are part of the problem.
 
Who are you? You don’t speak for all of us and in fact, your post is just another example of elite, leftist, woke know-it-alls. You go do your stand-and-preen events and don’t tell the rest of us what to do. Is a big hobby, but when one group of doofus’ think that they can tell others what to do??? No.

And just for the record, people don’t go to museums or historical places to look at quilts and pottery… and at historical events, they don’t want to see stand-and-preen dorks bloviating about dumb things. They want to see battle reenactments and such.

YOU are part of the problem.
That my friend was awesome.....
 
Back
Top