[lit-ideas] Re-enactments
- From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 02:06:59 EDT
Hi, again!
Well, my child's campbox is *almost* ready. I still have to finish with
mine. Since we have food allergies in this house and I need to check in at
work
for a project, I'll be back on Tuesday if we forgot anything. Though I have
to drive back down again by evening, I have been given to understand.
I was intrigued by the comments of the re-enactments. We have had some small
scale ones done even at our library branches...and I have gone to see a few
that are around here.
I have been, always, impressed with those who have participated and have
never ever felt that there was a glossing over of the horrors of war--if
anything, there is almost a determination to make sure that those who are
spectators
understand what it was like and why it was like it was.
Here are some of the thoughts of the couple of re-enactors who dropped by my
office (they put on some of our historical-oriented programs--more 'living
history' rather than mere storytelling...) They are Civil War re-enactors and
so that was more of the focus that they took...
If a re-enactment is done correctly, it can be a real educational tool.
It can show how troops are deployed on larger scales as well as the
individual ones.
It is terrible, but along with the re-enactment there can be alot of little
programs on medical care during that time period, the home-front, the
importance of raising awareness and interest in why did the war happen. Today
we are
so detached from 140 years ago that today we
only think about car lots, strip malls, shopping.
Today we are so unaware and uncaring about the fact that people
*have* died for causes and beliefs. It is a way of honoring the men and
women... Using the civil war battlefields (which are being encroached upon
and gradually being taken over by corporate and individual -- and once they
are 'gone', they are 'gone'.)
MB: here we veered off topic for a moment and discussed the pros and cons of
historical preservation, whether it be of homes, prairie grass, etc.
Thought that was kind of a related question--for does it make a difference to
actually SEE 'history'? What difference does it make for someone to SEE the
Liberty Bell (for example) or to drive on Route 66 (to get even closer to our
time
<g>) or Eugene Field's home in St. Louis (his dad was the attorney for the
Dred Scott case--and that led us to visit the Old Courthouse and for my child
to be in the re-enactment of that case...)
Then:
If you don't understand the civil war, you will not understand the ways this
nation was formed and why. As a result of the civil war, you can really see
the tensions held by people, the intricacies of belief systems and more.
600,000+ men died in the civil war and it IS very grim and sad...and no one
likes war. But in some ways, in order to alleviate the problems we have, or
the forming of a People, we have to be able to see and be shown that it WAS a
very sad time...and alot of the nation (and what we stand for) came out of
that war.
Do not want to discount these feelings on any means--and can kind of see
what that one fellow (Andreas) is saying. But, if people who are doing these
re-enactments are doing it correctly, the impact is actually a way to explain
that we need to look at these wars as a part of our heritage--and real good
re-enactors allow you to see, smell, hear and touch via what it was like.
If you lose touch with your history, you have lost touch with all that you
are...
If you don't understand the Civil War, you really won't understand the
United States. (There have not been that many civil wars like this one...)
MB: I was reminded of the 'debate' that was staged at one of our branches
between a couple of the re-enactors (one a school superintendent and the other
an attorney) and each were their 'characters' [real people from around our
area which had some battles fought -- and alot of the fighting grew in our
area because of Order No 11 which packed people up if they could not 'prove'
they had no Southern sympathy and shipped them down to southern Missouri to
live
in horrible situations for some time--after which, most of their homes/farms
were completely ransacked, etc. and they lost most of everything. One
reason Truman gave for the Marshall Plan was that he did not want there to be
the
same deep-seated anger and hatred for the 'winners' that had occurred in this
area because of Order No 11--his mother/grandmother simply could not stand
people from Kansas, for example, and for them, the war never really ended...
Knowing history can and has influenced decisions made as Time has continued.
Making it real, putting faces on people (in this area, they research the
person they choose to re-enact--they dig deep into the genealogy, the family
history, get to know who and what was happening ... and then talk about that
to
people who will go to see a re-enactment...)
and the medical corps information--definitely makes war real...
Just another point of view,
Marlena
> In a message dated 6/30/2005 6:17:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
johnwager@xxxxxxxxxxx
> writes:
> Have you ever watched the Discovery Channel or the History Channel?
They have dozens
> of programs on now about battles, and if you notice, they would be
EXTREMELY boring if it
> weren't for the hundreds of re-enactors they use as "visuals" for the
shows. I can't think of
> ANY show I've seen recently that has NOT used these re-enactors; they
are now essential
> to cable television!
>
>
> JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Thank God. There exists one other human being on the planet who views
these re-
> enactments the way I do and, unlike myself, is not afraid to say so.
>
> Julie Krueger
>
>
> ========Original Message========
> Subj:
> [lit-ideas] Re: Oh, great!
>
> Date:
> 6/29/05 1:23:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time
>
> From:
> andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To:
> lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent on:
>
>
> I don't understand these "re-creations of battles". The Americans do this
over and over
> again with Civil War battles. And now the Brits are doing naval battles.
>
> These can only be events that are stripped of all meaning. People die in
battles. Battles
> happen because difference forces are trying to destroy each other. But
none of that happens
> in a re-creation. The event is literally only "recreation", as in "a bit
of fun".
>
> War is a horrible thing and I simply don't see why it should be turned
into amusement.
> War-as-amusement only encourages militarization and makes war into
something acceptable.
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
Other related posts:
