Reenactor or Living Historian?

[The Kansan]

I'm having a bit of a dilema here:

I've been doing the Mountainman/Buckskinner/Civilian Scout/Primitive Trek thing for a lot of years, both on my own and as attached to various posts. (i.e., Historic Fort Hays, Ks.) And though what I present to the public is as historically accurate as I can make it, in no way am I actually Reennacting or re-creating a specific historical event. In fact, what I am doing is trying to interpret history for the benefit of those who come to see me.

At the same time, I hear the term re-enactor tossed around casually, indiscriminately and generically with seemingly no regard as to it's actual definition.

Am I nit picking when I tell someone that "Actually, I'm not a reenactor, but prefer to think of myself as a Living Historian." Am I just being thin skinned when I get my back up because someone refers to what I do with the same description they use on the guys who dress like Abe Lincoln once a year, but otherwise could care less about history?

I've nothing against those who reennact. Some of my best friends are Civil War buffs who spend a great deal of time researching and re-creating Civil War battles. But that's not what I do.

So, Am I a Living Historian/Historical Interpretor or am I a reenactor who puts entirely too much emphasis on semantics? ...Or is this just such a "non-issue" that I'm wasting my time and yours by even asking about it?

Thanks much in advance for your opinions!

...The Kansan...

 

well, some folks get all riled up over terminology, scientists and lawyers mainly, and some don't. I think you are correct in your interpretation of what you are. "Buckskinner" used to encompass many of us, but we are getting away from that, and "Living Historian" sounds better, but I am not sure it is a good term. Herodotus is a dead historian and I know several living ones that never "dress up" in period stuff. "Reenactor" applies to my neighbor who "recreates" certain Civil War battles, such as the big Battle of Mansfield near here in April. I think if you are not reenacting a specific historic event, "reenactor" is not the right term. Anyone got a good one? :m2c:

 

[Kenney Moore]

Howdy,
I think both you guys are on the right track. This is the way I look at it.
If you are portraying a specific event in history, then the term 'reenactor' fits very well. If you are using the equipage of old, such as a specific time period say the 1750's, but not an event, then the term 'living history interpreter' sounds right to me.

Hope I have not confused the issue.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I don't even know why I'm on here. I used to be a Civil War reenactor and for the most part we reenacted Civil War battles. But sometimes we would put on events where we simply showed the public how the soldiers lived in camps or how they interracted with the civilians of the time. We called these Living History Events which made us Living Historians. The only difference was at the smaller Living History Events, we didn't put on a large battle. However, at some, there would be a small skirmish, either a put on one just to show the public what it was like or based on one that happened at that site, which made it a reenactment.
To me I guess, reenactor and living historian are the same, if performed properly. The historian is using himself, his equipment and weapon as a live guide to our past. So is the reenactor. What's the difference? Living Historian just sounds better. Kinda like comparing archealogist to relic hunter. Which one of them gets the most respect?

 

labels are generally for the other guy, the unknowing.

outsiders "understand" the easier general term of reenactor.

when I am teaching others I am "interpreting"

When they walk away I am an "experimental archeologist"

If I am duplicating an event I am "reenacting"

If I am not duplicating an event I am a "living historian"

When I get cold and sit by the fire I am a "cultural anthropologist"

I once had a professor that said he could justify any living history activity as a tax write off because he was always either teaching or doing research.

use the label you are most comfortable with, if you have to have one.

:results:

 

I agree with Primitive3!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :applause: :applause: :: :imo: :m2c:

YMHS
rollingb

 

[The Kansan]

'Preciate the response, so far!

use the label you are most comfortable with, if you have to have one.

Maybe I should explain a little further: I've been doing this for 20 plus years, so I'm comfortable with who and what I am. The problem is that in the little community where I live now, the local hysterical society has not a clue;

"Oh, so you're a cowboy shooter?" "Uh, no Ma'am, I'm kinda' more of a Mountain man/Buckskinner/Civilian Scout... Uh, I've worked with Old Fort Hays a lot and I've been on television several times..." "Oh, you're a reenactor! Well, we have tons of them around here! Why just last year, we had 17 different Abe Lincolns here for Lincoln's birthday!" "...Uh, Ma'am? I don't just dress up for the day and walk around town. I take the time and live the life and learn the ways of the period that I'm portraying." "Yes, well all of our Lincolns grow their own beards... And some of them even have their own costumes!" "Uh... Yes Ma'am... Uh, me too..."

I guess I'm trying to figure out a way to politely explain the difference between growing a beard and appearing one day a year and doing the research, walking the walk ( before talking the talk) and, indeed, literally walking in the footsteps of my heroes.

I think I can inject a good deal of life and excitement into this little local hysterical society, but I can't do it as a reenactor...

...The Kansan...

 

[Claude Mathis]

labels are generally for the other guy, the unknowing.

outsiders "understand" the easier general term of reenactor.

when I am teaching others I am "interpreting"

When they walk away I am an "experimental archeologist"

If I am duplicating an event I am "reenacting"

If I am not duplicating an event I am a "living historian"

When I get cold and sit by the fire I am a "cultural anthropologist"

I once had a professor that said he could justify any living history activity as a tax write off because he was always either teaching or doing research.

use the label you are most comfortable with, if you have to have one.

Amen! Truer words were never spoken.

I find that it helps to choose a "label" that will help my "guest" audience understand what it is that I'm doing. Others who are involved need no explanation.

 

Kansan, you are partaking in a noble attempt to do the impossible.

Blue haired ladies in tennis shoes have traditionally done more to help/harm local and regional history than any other group.

Their normal focus is on family geneology and the local hero. In my area of origin they also believed that nothing had happened until the Civil War.

Usually they are very interested, until they discover we do not cover their area if focus.

"You're a reenactor, Oh you do the Civil War!"
"You're a historian, Oh my ancestors were in the War (meaning the BIG WAR)"

If you try to explain that your area of focus is the F&I War or the Rev War, fur trade or the early settlement period, you get a sort of blank stare into space, their eyes glaze over and they suddenly have someone they must go talk too.

You should try prying money out of one of their committies for hands on interpretation efforts! They make you explain everything 5 times and still act like they don't understand just so you will give up and leave their treasury alone.

You are not alone and among the hundreds of "living historians" I know of and communicate with regualrily, I have found no one with the answer you seek.

I have been doing this for half a lifetime, have a Masters Degree in History with emphisis on historic site administration and interpretation through living history and I do not know the solution to the problem.

The only thing I have seen that comes near being an answer is at the sites where we can totally seperate ourselves from the "normal history".

Get a grant and build a cabin out back of the local historic mansion that duplicates the "origional house before the mansion was built". The historical society will have their mansion to party in and you can do some real history out back.

Q "What are you doing back here?"
A "trying to figure out how the first folks out here lived."

I'm still telling folks that the fire is real and I'm really going to eat that food. They were the first two questions I answered and they will probably be the last.

:results:

I feel your pain and understand your confusion.

 

[scott fellows]

i like the term historical interpreter. you are basically giving your interprtation, based on your research, of how things were done in a certain time period. maybe that would help explain it to the flatlanders. scott fellows

 

[olgriz]

I have a friend that has his degree in anthropology. Sometimes he goes out on the eastern Oregon desert alone, sometimes with like minded friends, sometimes there are boys and girls. The idea when they go out on the desert isn't to try and recreate any particular tribe. It's a generic thing of how in the heck did stong age people live out here in this harsh environment. The early people that lived on this land didn't wear much if anything for clothes. So these guys get nekked and hike out there and camp, making stone age tools and gather and eat the food that they can find on the land, which includes grasshoppers, seeds, rodents, possibly when lucky a rabbit. They make cordage, sagebrush bark sandles, have only missed having a fire on one trip, actually trying to live the life of a stoneage person for a few days. He has learned a lot. It works for him but I get goose bumps too easy, so I don't want to go along. He calls himself an "applied anthropolgist". If you are living the life you are interpeting wouldn't you be an "applied historian"?

 

[Dave Poss]

If you think you have it ruff in Kansas, You should live in Georgia! The majority of people here don't think there was a history prior to the Civil War. When I refer to the Georgia Rangers that patroled inner Ga.to protect settlers from the Indians....I get a blank stare followed by some comment to the effect of "Did they fight at Gettysburg?" AAGGGGGGG! :curse:

DP-VP/TMA

 

[redhairedwench]

Kansas, as for what you do in reguards of history, I would use the term historical interpreter. It is probably the most accurate "label" you could give yourself, if you are not recreating a specific event that happened in our history. AS for re-enactors, we re-create a time frame, and try to get as accurate as possible to the correct portrayl of that time. Living Historian, well, now there's one to really confuse a person. If you are a history major, with a degree in that field, then of course, you're a living historian....you're not dead, after all! :imo:

 

[Tumblernotch]

ghost, I believe you have it! And Kansan makes a good point too. About anywhere you go, especially in the East, if you portray any part of the Civil War, you're a "reenactor", except maybe those guys who do this for the National Park Service who are "Living Historians". That's what you hear from the general public anyway. If you do a longhunter impression from the F&I War to 1840 you're a "buckskinner". I've been called a "Nut" many times. I don't think we'll ever fit anyone's descriptions to the letter. In newspaper articles I and some others have been labelled "enthusiasts".
Maybe that one is closer, I don't know. I do know that I developed a love for CW history at a very young age and got involved as soon as I could find out how. I also have been involved in eastern longhunter events on a limited basis and hope to increase in that. I don't care what the public calls me. If I'm in a public setting, all I can do is portray a soldier or hunter as accurately as I can. To be honest, I didn't get started in any of this for the public's sake. I got in it for mine. I do know that I carry a responsibility, especially in public to carry myself in a manner that would not take away from those whom I would portray. I descend from Confederate Soldiers and a fort builder and an Indian fighter and spy here in WV, so I guess I'm just carryin' on a family tradition.
ghost, I really like what you said at the end of your reply, the Q & A and the last statement. I've said the same things.

 

[loophole]

I think there is more involved in this than just a name. When some of my friends and I got interested in history of our NC mountain ancestors we started out hunting and tramping in the woods with longrifles, dressed in mocs and hunting shirts, and we gradually got pretty authentic with are clothes and equiptment. We started putting on rifle frolics and we ran shooting matches at state parks in Ga. and SC and in the national forest in NC. The director of the battlefield museum at Camden SC called me and told me they needed some "militia" troops at their annual battle reenactment, so we volunteered to help.
We met our first reenactors there. Fine folks, but they were doing something very different from what we did. These children never fired a live round in their Besses, and were amazed that we expected to show people that our longrifles acutally worked! They set up a fine looking little camp, but when the tourists left they headed out to a motel, amazed that we were planning to spend the night under our diamond shelters.
I later met some other reenactors, including some great people from the Conner Prairie musuem, who would go to the woods with the best of us, but my experience with reenactors is that many of them spend much more time researching fine points of the material culture of an era than they do becomming woodsmen.
So if the language is to be used to make distinctions, we should distinguish between those who are interested primarily in learning the skills associated with the use of a longrifle or other historic firearm on the frontier, and those primarily interested in duplicating the clothing and accoutrements of the frontier era.
Now before the moderator jumps on me for criticizing reenactors, let me remind you that I am not criticizing anyone--I've learned a great deal from some reenactors, and one of the best woodsman I ever met had a library or musuem reference for every item he carried and he even learned 18th century tavern songs and wouldn't let us sing modern songs around his campfire. Remember also, that I have not suggested that all reenactors use their guns more often as props than as weapons--the point is that at least some of them do, and we need to distinguish between a rifleman and a man who owns a rifle.
I don't refer to myself as a reenactor, but I haver to admit I don't have any good alternative.
Anyone have any ideas?

If at first you don't secede, try, try again.

 

[Dave Poss]

Loophole...There will always be posers in any activity. I know a man that must have every piece of fishing gear ever made and a mega-dollar bass boat to put it all in. Does he fish? No...he loads up all the manure, goes to the lake , sits in his boat and gets knee-wobbling drunk!...a poser. In the blackpowder circles, we have some of the same...they load up all there gear, go to a rendezvous and sit by a fire and get drunk.

In general reenactors serve a very important part in our circle. Many children would not have a clue about Rev war or Civil War battles without the dedication and research done by reenactors.Standing and marching in 90 degree heat with wool coats on for the benefit of spectators is no picnic! Imo, their colorful portrayals interest alot of people to take up blackpowder shooting. The newcomers may not delve into very far , but they get the rifle and learn how to shoot it, and get a feel for history.

I have never been a reenactor, but I sure appreciate the "work" they do.

I have done my share of dog and pony shows for the public. This gives them a glimpse into our world of yesterday. Most of the time , you answer stupid questions and try to be polite. But every so often, you talk with someone who shows a genuine interest and ends up a real "buckskinner"(for want of a better word).

I've been at this for over 30 years and I'm still learning . I've gone on 2 week treks by myself and lived off the land. But, I still pick up pointers even now from others that will make my next trek a more authentic one.
There is no way to absolutely duplicate a woodsmans life of 250 years ago...all we can do is try.

So, am I a rifleman or a man who has a rifle? neither!
I'm simply a person who tries to emulate the late 1700's the best way I can through research and woods activity. I really don't want or need a "title" to descibe me.
I guess, though, we are all posers to some extent since we are born into a modern society with jobs to go to, cars to get there and computers to write on....but, a few days, every so often, of reenacting, rendezvousing, trekking, or just shooting our longrifles is the best we can do.

 

[loophole]

Dave, check your messages--we shot against each other the first time at the Asheville Rifle and Pistol club about 1978.
I think the term "buckskinner" describes better than any other what I have been trying to do for almost 30 years, but back in the days of the AMM and the buckskin report it meant fur trade era, and things got confusing when we traded our Hawken rifles and capotes for longrifles and hunting shirts. There never was much focus in the rendevous in the east because the Tipis and other plains Indian items were a bit out of place to begin with, and when folks started showing up in Rogers Rangers uniforms it was hard to say who was the anachronism. Maybe that lack of focus was one of the reasons they quit shooting and became primitive flee markets.
There is value in the dog and pony show, which you always did better than I because you're prettier, but I think we both agree that what makes it all worthwhile is done in the woods, alone or with a small group of folks who share the need to live out a link with our past, rather than just reading about it or watching it on the History Channel.
Did you ever get back in the woods for a couple of days and as you headed back out think: what if, like something from the Twilight Zone, when I get back to the road there is just a game trail, no road, no truck parked where I left it--what if I've gone back to 1790? Were you disappointed when you saw the truck?

If at first you don't secede, try, try again.

 

[Dave Poss]

Just ck'd messages...good to hear from you. It's been a long 20 something years! I'll try to call you on a land line this weekend.

As far as wishing to be back in the 1790's....well, we just ain't tuff enough! Modern man is a soft pansy compared to the pioneers, trailblazers, woodsrunners, and mountain men of the 1700-1800's. When I read of the hardships they faced everyday just to survive; it's very humbleing. No matter how hard we try to emulate our forefathers, we are still children of a modern civilization. We can spend days, or weeks in the woods living off the land, but ultimately, we all come home to our centreal heat and air and drive to the grocery store to replenish our fridge! We are seldom more than a few hours from a hospital or Doctor and deep down we know that. We don't have to concern ourselves about the common worries of 200 years ago....has my family been killed by Indians while I've been gone?...Will my meager crops sustain us this year? Will the pox in the next township hit our little settlement and take my children? Etc. Etc.
So,I , like many others, would like to think we were strong enough, brave enough, knowledgeable enough to live in our period of interest, but in our hearts , we know that our ancestors were a special breed that we can only admire but could never duplicate their degree of moxey, self confidence and sheer bravery.
Yep, I'd like to go back to the 1790's ...just to see how much I really don't know.

 

How can a "reenactor" be defined as such, if he doesn't reenact a time period with "weapons" of the time period he's reenact'n????

The very livelihood of our ancestors was largely dependent on weapons. Ther is no way someone can honestly call themselves "reenactors" without use'n the most prominate/prevalent tools of survival for any given "bygone era"!! (to attempt to do otherwise is greatly "twisted") :imo: :m2c:

Anyone try'n to convince me they are "reenators" better be as familar with weapons, as they are at "look'n "purty"!! If they ain't use'n weapons on a regular basis, then they ain't real "reenactors"!!

I "reenact" a trapper of the 1820's, and I use the most prominate "tools" of thet era which justifies "what" I do!!

 

[Bearbait2]

Mr. Longknife,
Have read what you said with interest. Though your points have a ring of truth, no disrepect intended, my experience has lead me to a different conclusion.
Though the weapons of thirty years ago were a little different, the result was the same. And bravery on the battlefield was no stranger, the same as today.
Don't see much difference in the perceived Indian problem (am quite certain they saw the white man as the problem) and the predators that intrude upon our lives on a daily basis; as far as "danger" is concerned.
In this country there are thousands of people that don't know where their next meal is going to come from, one day to the next. Medical science has indeed made amazing progress, if you can afford it. Many can not... and die.
To cut this short, IMHO the problems facing mankind today aren't much different than they were back in colonial times other than a slight change in the cast of characters; including Holy Wars.
Please be assured I value your view point and thank you for sharing it.
Best Wishes