Inquiry Blog Seven

Originally, I had intended to interview Dr. Karen Flint, my professor for Comparative Slaveries in Africa and our school’s director of Public History, but I knew from struggling to find a time to attend office hours, that our schedules are far from compatible.

After procrastinating for far too long, I struggled to think of who I could interview. I decided to interview my high school AP US History teacher, Matthew Carr. I chose to interview for more reasons than accessibility  He’s taught history for years, and tries to teach alternate perspectives of the past. I also thought that my topic has its greatest impact at the level he teaches.  High school history classes tend to make or break a fondness for the subject, and he was one of the best teachers I’ve ever had as far as garnering student interest is concerned.

I was also driven to interview him because I feel like historical reconstruction and reenactment doesn’t have any aspects that are hotly contested and debated, but it is often snubbed. Interviewing someone who is a reenactor wouldn’t help me in this endeavor, so I went with a history teacher.

note: I also conducted “mini-interviews” with others who are not in any way “experts”, but I thought that the conversations could bring me extra insight.

Questions:

To be frank, my questions developed in the interview, and I didn’t have time to write them down before he began talking. The answers blended many questions together, but I will try my very hardest to remember!

1) How would you define historical reenactment? What are the qualifiers for labeling something such?

2) Would you consider reenactment a … decent way of learning about and/or spreading knowledge of a particular aspect of history?

3) What makes it problematic?

4) What makes it beneficial?

Those were my main questions. Tiny ones like “Have you ever thought of videogames as reenactment?” were interspursed throughout the interview, but I don’t remember them all.

I’m sorry for my horrid note-taking skills.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My interview went swimmingly, to say the least. Since it was conducted with a previous teacher, I already knew the interviewee and felt more comfortable in the situation. We talked for a bit about random history things for a while before actually buckling down.

I learned many things, but mostly ended up nodding my head in agreement the entire time. I hadn’t realized until then that many of my conceptions of history, historiography, and public thought and sentiment come from long-forgotten discussions in his class. He was prone to going off on tangents about the too-often-forgotten Native American history, and other ignored pasts. When I asked him about his thoughts on reenactment, one of the very first things he mentioned was how it was problematic and silencing. So many groups were and are completely absent from reenactment. I completely agree with him, it is beyond upsetting. I’ve addressed the subject in my paper briefly,  but my interview made me realize that it would be helpful to expound upon that.

He also connoted reenactment with military, battles, weapons and violence, initially. That is what tends to cause people to look down on reenactment. It’s frequently seen as an outlet for men who love guns and guts. It’s sad. War is fetishized and marketed as glorious, and is presented to many as the only interesting aspect of history. He backed up the assertions I made in my paper concerning this. I should probably also add more to that part.

Something new that he presented to me was rather surprising. Well, it was surprising that my mind didn’t wander there first. He, remembering how I connected so much history with plays and musicals and the like, couldn’t believe that I hadn’t thought of plays and musicals as reenactment. The thought had occurred, but only in brief flickers. I had considered films and plays written about an era historical reconstruction, but  he brought up the idea that films, plays, and musicals written in an era offer just as much, offered more insight into that time, and that when they are produced now, they are reenactments of the time they were written in.

My interview largely served to back the assertions I made in my paper, but it did provide new thoughts and new perspectives about it. Most importantly, it reasserted the rhetorical situation I am writing to. Historical reenactment is not respected as a medium, though it is often appreciated in practice. People tend to take away lots of knowledge from reenactment, though they don’t believe it possible.

Inquiry Blog VI, i

I’m pretty sure nothing I’ve done in this post is what you were really asking for. I’ve done my best.

Well, I was a bit confused, but this is the information I garnered from the text. Bitzer–Rhetorical_Situation.1 (1)

A rhetorical situation is the events and problems surrounding an argument, that help it to form. The public  sentiment towards a subject, the questions formed, and the problems faced all mold rhetoric. Rhetoric has to be a fitting response to the situation, and the rhetor must be aware of how such a response will be responded to. Dreary situations can be altered and put into a more postive light to help an argument.

As for my inquiry, the rhetorical situation would be the wariness reenactment is eyed with. People know of its inaccuracy and other problematic aspects: its single sidedness, its emotional aspects. I responded to the situation by addressing ways of fixing those problems, and by focusing more on the positive aspects of reenactment.

My First Inquiry Blog

https://coffeeshopcavalier.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/inquiry-blog-the-first/

In this inquiry blog, I believe my rhetorical situation was… well, the assignment first. I didn’t quite know what was going on then with the idea of an inquiry ( honestly, that is still applicable) and I was simply trying to meet the goals of the assignment. I suppose that is a situation though.

The Second

https://coffeeshopcavalier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/inquiry-blog-two/

Okay. This is difficult. My purpose was to present and explain my choice in COP, as well as to explain the community itself.

The Third

https://coffeeshopcavalier.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/inquiry-blog-tertius/

My situation in writing this blog was a need to analyse sources, when I couldn’t find any fitting ones. My response was to show how I’ve been trying to do the assignment.

The Fourth

https://coffeeshopcavalier.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/inquiry-blog-three-and-a-half-four/

In this, I needed to make up for my previous one. I needed to prove that I cared about the assignement and was willing to work hard on it. I needed to present the best writing, best analysis that I possibly could. That was my motivation for writing.

The Fifth

https://coffeeshopcavalier.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/inquiry-blog-five/

In my fifth blog, I must admit that I was a bit weary of the entire thing. My rhetorical situation was once again just a need to complete the assignment. I didn’t feel the need to prove anything. I just needed to get it done, which is sad. It’s very informal, as are the rest, because it only serves to be a collection of notes for my writing. I don’t place my own thoughts on the page, only those that the authors have. My thoughts are collected separately in preparation for writing the paper.

Free Response One:

https://coffeeshopcavalier.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/concerning-feelings-towards-writing/

This is perhaps the easiest rhetorical situation to explain. We were given a prompt yes, but it was a free write. I didn’t have to meet any goals, and I felt that I could write to the rhythm in my head, and write what I really felt. It was free, and I wrote to that end.

Notes on the lecture:

my interwebs suck. I cannot make sense of whats being said because it stops every three seconds.

purpose.

purpose purpose purpose

situation surrounding writing or reading

CONTEXT

Garner support when support seems to be there already (lots of cheering)? Must not be real purpose.

Oh wait different speaker?

Purpose changes: context( film, and author), content

double context in film (audience in film is rodeo; real audience is movie goers)

bias and authority

what are you trying to achieve in your writing; for whom are you writing?

tone and language matching situation: formality &c &c

FIN

Inquiry Blog Three… and a half? Four?

I didn’t want to go back and edit my last blog post for simplicity’s sake. I also wanted to be able to look back at the changes in my thought processes later on.

For my topic, I’m very interested in how reenactment affects public sentiment and interpretations of history.

Source #1

Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance

“Authority and Performance”

W.B. Worthen

The application of this source to my topic is a bit of a stretch. The writer is not a part of the COP I’m focusing on and his writing has little to do with reenactment. As I read, however, I came to find that a lot of his ideas are very applicable. Just as there are ideas of true and original meaning to Shakespeare’s works outside of interpretation, there is a true history, strictly comprised of events without emotion or perspective. It is, of course, nigh impossible to find those true meanings as the past is already past, and Shakespeare is no longer around to relay his intent and meaning.

Also an intriguing connection was the idea of the canonization of interpretation. If a play is interpreted and performed in one way many times, that one way becomes the ”right” way. If a historical event is portrayed in novels, movies, living history museums, and theatre in one specific perspective, that perspective becomes the truth in the eyes of the people.

Worthen writes to critique how actors, directors, and scholars aim to match the original meaning Shakespeare put to his texts. Since they have their own individual understandings (influenced by their primary Discourses?) they can never really be true to that meaning.

To me, this means that, though complete accuracy will never be reached, it is something to strive for. In order to reach towards authenticity, no perspective or portrayal should be ignored. No specific version should ever be seen as correct. Presenting a variety to the world will allow people to process information in a variety of ways and take steps to greater clarity and understanding.\

Source #2

History’s Affective Turn: Historical Reenactment and its work in the Present

Vanessa Agnew

Agnew has interest in a variety of fields, including the study of Historical Reenactment. She was involved in the BBC2/History Channel historical reality show “The Ship”

She actually refers to “The Ship” in the article as she critiques the genre. Historical reality reenactment tends to focus more on the hardship of past times in comparison the present. Rather than shedding light on past events, by placing ordinary people in historical living situation, these reenactments reveal truths about the present rather than the past.

I agree with many specifics in her article that concern how reenactment tends to ignore events and specifics in favor of socio-cultural awareness. I do, however, think that it can be a great tool when used properly.

Source #3

Public History and the Study of Memory

David Glassberg

David Glassberg studies history and public history, and in this article he discusses public memory and perceptions of history. Public memory is shifted for political reasons in order to create visions of unity and positive reflections of the past. Well, that’s one of the shifts. There are also commercial alterations of history.

Historical memory is first swayed by the interpretations of those who experience and record it. Then only some versions and interpretations of those accounts are put forward on a mass scale and presented to the public. Finally, each individual interprets the information presented to them. The truth of the happenings is lost.

This is a generalization of public history but can easily be applied to reenactment specifically, as it plays a major part in the continuation or alteration of themes in public memory.

Source #4

A youtube video lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bxm1M1Z9ms

I nearly lost my patience with this. It skipped and restarted several times, so it ended up lasting much longer than an hour… but I really wanted to use Marci Reaven’s lecture, I figured that it would make for an interesting source.

This video speaks directly of public history in New York City and looks at it in a more optimistic light than the other sources I’ve looked at. There is a focus on location and individual histories, while helping to create a sense of community. Community and culture take precedence over diplomacy, politics,  and war. The exhibits show how culture evolves with migrations of people and that these changes can be frequently be met with tensions and it is those tensions that cause events.

I’m a bit rubbish at writing for this one. It was an hour long presentation. I’ll have to return to it again soon…

 

I’m quite sure that my project will require a lot of my own opinions with only slight references to these sources. I plan on supplementing these with examples of historical reenactment (documentaries, film, and television) and will note the choices made and how they affect interpretation and the audience’s emotions.

Inquiry Blog Tertius

I’m having a smidge of trouble getting to sources.

Two articles I’d really like to read are unavailable to me at present. One because our library has no subscription to Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice and the other because the issue of Text and Performance Quarterly in which it is too recent and has not yet been made available, for our library only has issues published eighteen or more months ago. I’m trying to get the first through an interlibrary loan…

I figure I should describe them nonetheless, because based on the abstracts I’ve read, they sound absolutely fascinating.

Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice

“History’s Affective Turn: Historical Reenactment and its Work in the Present”

by Vanessa Agnew

This article, from what I can gather without being able to fully access it, talks of how historical reenactment promotes a romanticizing of history.

I especially like the idea of a historian’s look at how people look at history. It’s a sort of abstract historiography.

Text and Performance Quarterly

“The Other Southern Belles: Civil War Reenactment, African American Women, and the Performance of Idealized Femininity”

by Patricia G. David

This article also deals with how reenactment can effect views of the past. African American women are portrayed as “demure southern belles” now and how for many years they were only portrayed at motherly types or whores. It speaks of feminist and racial issues that are presented in both variations…

I’m on the search for other sources (ones that I can actually gain access to) and I will come back and edit this as soon as I can. I just needed to be sure that I have something posted, at the very least. As of right now, however, I find myself in dire need of a cup of tea…

Inquiry Blog Two

Decisions, Decisions!

After much deliberation (hours of thinking on this whilst writing an essay on the transatlantic slave trade) I think I may have finally decided on a COP that I’ll be able to live with: Historical Reenactment/Living History.

I really wanted to do the History Peeps, but there are too few places to gather information, and that was disheartening. Historians seemed like too broad a group.

The idea came to me when I thinking of my friend Hannah who’s just left to attend uni in Scotland. She’d been working at Latta Plantation for at least a year, and it’s always sounded so fun. If only it didn’t take so much gas to get there.

It’s so perfect, combining my love of theatre and history. I’ve absolutely no clue why it didn’t come to me sooner.

Living History is an experience in which actors bring specific eras and events to life. In order construct a quality living history, much research needs to be done. Besides the actual events being portrayed, the researchers must delve into the culture of the times: what clothes were worn? What patterns of speech were used? What slang? What tools did they use? What smells filled the air?

Living history is great because it allows us to look into the past, to see those sights, to hear those sounds, to smell those sounds. By experiencing such reconstructions of past environments, it allows historians and everyday people to gain insight on the conditions surrounding events, and thus the events themselves.

You can read about horrible working conditions, but until you find yourself experiencing them, you’ll never fully understand how it feels, how it can affect someone.

This is the purpose of living history.

 

Sites I’ve Found! (I need to spend more time looking through them, I know. Right now my focus is on pooling information…)

The Association for Living History, Farm, and Agricultural Museums

Living History Association

Histrenact ( a sort of search engine for all thing historical reenactment related)

Living History Education Foundation

 

Discourses!

The idea of (big d) Discourses is really quite interesting in this COP. One of the biggest aspects of the Discourse is the ability of reenactors to come up with completely new discourses to fit the time period, occupation, and societal standing of their character. The language and jargon of the COP varies based on what period, and what aspect of it is being portrayed. The same goes for body language. An actor playing a military man will stand tall and rigid, will be more calculating in his movements. An actor playing an orphaned child will be more slumped and will tend to shy away from the action. A drunk will be more brash. I find this fascinating, their Discourse that binds them is a shifting of Discourses.

Of course, the entire community is not made of actors. There are researchers who help create the living history and there are educators who use them to teach. Their Discourses, so far as I can tell at present, are those that tie them into the other COPs of Historians and Educators. Their Discourses would be comprised of more professional dress, a fondness for the use of footnotes, and a need to consider perspective and historiography.

 

All in all, I think I’ve found a bit of excitement for this Inquiry once more. This is relieving. I don’t want to feel apprehensive or irritated by it, and for a while I think I was. I just needed a lot of time to think about my decision…

Inquiry Blog the First

Historians, The History Peeps, Lovers of Musical Theatre, and Advocates of Social Justice. I aspire to be part of the first and am already part of the others.

Overview:

To be an historian is like being a professional student. You continue learning throughout your life as an historian. That is the greatest appeal: never needing to stop questioning and learning and thinking.

The Do’s and Don’ts:

An historian should always aim for objectivity and acknowledge the biases he/she does have. An historian should try to uncover as many possible points of view on a subject as possible. He/she should work to form new ideas.

Becoming an Historian:

To become an historian, one must have at least a Master’s degree for archival and curatorial work, and a Doctorate for work as a professor in a  four year institution.

Hierarchy and Society:

I don’t know much about historians yet, save what I’ve learned from a week of knowing my two history professors, but, concerning ways of dress, I happened to stumble upon this video which shows the varied ways historians dress at a relatively formal event. I also found this blog post by an historian in which she discusses the ways in which the wardrobe of a professor is seen differently based on gender.

Overview: 

The social justice community is made up of those who support and fight for the rights of all people no matter their race, gender, sexaulity (or lack therof), gender identity, or disability. As far as the world has come in respect to civil rights, the members of this community refuse to think that prejudice and problems no longer exist for any group.

Do’s and Don’ts:

As a member of a social justice community, one must always be aware of his/her privileges (male privilege, white privilege, heterosexual privilege, cisgendered privilege).the social justice community member must monitor every thing he/she/zhe says, because if he/she/zhe something that could be seen as offensive, though that was not the intent, he/she/zhe will be ostracized and attacked. This is especially prevalent online. Those who fight for acceptance can make mistakes, as anyone can, but when they do they are met with insults and death threats. The anonymous take the time to find the individual’s name and address in order to force he/she/zhe to go into hiding, in a sense.

This is worrying to me. I want to speak up about things I believe in, but it terrifies me what could happen if I slip up. I also think it hinders the messages the community tries to support. The rage and antagonistic qualities of the community only serve to worsen the opposition. There are a few, however who realize that it is safer and smarter to calmly explain to others their mistakes and what they’re trying to accomplish.

Becoming a member of the Social Justice Community:

It isn’t something you become a part of. If you have the values, you are a member.

Hierarchy and Society:

In the social justice community, those who have less privilege in the rest of society are ranked the highest. It’s how it should be. Those who are oppressed or ignored deserve to have their voices heard.

There’s no particular way of dressing in the group, since it is so diverse. There are of course a multitude of t-shirts earned from being part of certain societies and communities there within.

As for speech patterns, I’ve already discussed them a bit.  Members of the social justice community are passionate and outspoken. They can be articulate, but often their emotions hide the rationale.

Overview:

“Drama geeks” and actors are often seen as serious and focused, but when singing and dancing is added a new breed of people is found. Musical theatre actors are usually a livelier bunch. They tend to be more laid back: there are fewer qualms about fooling about backstage, so long as they remain quiet, they belt out their favorite showtunes while doing mundane tasks, and they are prone to tap dancing down hallways. Most importantly, they have a love and a talent for all things musical theatre.

The Do’s and Don’ts:

When it comes to this community, there really aren’t many requirements that come to mind, but there are several restrictions. They stem from a need to respect your fellow performers. When acting as an audience member, you shouldn’t speak or be distracting in any way. When rehearsing, you should not try to be the director yourself: there is someone hired for that job. The community is driven by “golden rule” style respect.

Becoming a Musical Theatre Person:

One becomes a musical theatre person when they audition for or see their first show. The experience pushes them to continue on and experience as much of the world of musical theatre as is possible.

Hierarchy and Society:

As much as it pains me to say, there is definitely an hierarchy within the world of musical theatre. Putting aside those who have “made it” in a world of professional performance, there are two major groups: those who’ve been doing it for year, who have the training and experience, and those who don’t. One can have mounds of natural talent, but he/she will still seem insignificant when surrounded by those who claim to have been doing it since they were to, who list out the roles they’ve played, who’ve taken this master class and those voice lessons with this teacher. When I was Musical Theatre “Major” at Northwest School of the Arts for two years, my friends and I referred to such people as “The Elitist Musical Theatre Kids.”

In casual settings, people in the musical theatre community tend to have a quirky sense of dress. They mix patterns and wear bright colors. For auditions, they dress to impress: the girls wear dresses and heel, the men button ups and slacks. The leotards and tights from rehearsal tend to slip into more frequent wear as well, as they’ll often not take the time to change out of them before heading home.

Those in the musical theatre community tend to speak in run on sentences. Their tone is more of a sing-song and their expressions are always clear on their faces.

Overview:

Perhaps the most interesting, and by far the most obscure of communities I know of is “The History Peeps.” The History Peeps is a community on tumblr made up of highschoolers and college students with a love for history. What makes them interesting is their approach to history. Far too many people either place historical figures  up on gilded pedestals or condemn them as murderers and psychopaths, but the history peeps choose to acknowledge that every figure in the past, no matter how significant, lived a live outside of what’s written in the textbooks. They squeal over Robespierre’s love of pigeons and Aaron Burr’s sexual exploits in addition to having serious intellectual discussion.

Though I do consider myself a part of this community, I exist far from the center of it. I and many others tend to take a backseat in participation; we pipe in with our opinions from time to time, but tend to back away from some of the more …spirited activity, by which I mean photoshopping the heads of historical figures onto various things, drawing historical fanart, and writing historical smut. It’s a bit much for me.

I enjoy being a part of this group because , despite some of the stranger goings on, “peepdom” in its broadest sense is a love for, an enthusiasm for, and a fresh look at all things history.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Peepdom:

As stated by many history peeps, the only requirement for becoming a history peep is a love of history. The only restrictions are those that prohibit insulting the interests and favorite periods and figures of others, and blaming any event on any one person. Otherwise, History Peeps are allowed to do whatever they please.

Becoming a Peep:

One does not truly become a peep. Those who are a part of this community have always had a love for history, the title simply came from them finding each other. There is no becoming a history peep, rather one finds the history peeps.

Hierarchy and Society:

There is little to no hierarchy within the History Peeps. Whatever there may be would be based on seniority and amount of activity. Those who have been History Peeps for the longest time, those who write more, draw more, do more are better known within the community.

There’s little governance of our actions and speech, but it tends to fluctuate between two extremes. There are times for eloquence and rhetoric and times for incomprehensible rambling, times for composure and times for fangirling.