The Tenuous Future of Living History

[CuNosecap]

I found an interesting and troubling article in the Colorado Sun about living history at Fort Bent Colorado near La Junta. The article tells the story for Fort Bent, named for two brothers, and the condition and future of the living history program there. I t seems the Nat Park Service hired a consultant to evaluate the site and its programs. While the conclusions drawn include relevant concerns about the condition of the aging infrastructure, the whole idea of the value of living history came under scrutiny. I have not been to Ft Bent, but have been to many similar sites. I have not participated in living history events nor am I a reenactor. But I very much appreciate the programs and hard work that it takes to keep these programs going, even when much of the work is done by free, volunteer labor.

I will let those more savvy on the topic read the article and opine, but this, to me smells of "wokeness" as the consultants review hinted at diversity etc, without quite going there. I would hate to think that what some value as tremendous learning opportunities for both the youth and adult "city dwellers", might be erased due to a stroke of the Nat Park Service pen held by a consultant from "who knows where".

Please take a look and read the article. It is not long and I am very interested to hear what the experienced folks here think.

Rick


new link attempt:

https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/11/bents-old-fort-living-history-conflict/

 

[wiscoaster]

I'm sorry, but the link didn't work for me. Can you check it again and edit if necessary? I'm concerned about the disinterest in history among young people. "Living history" serves a role in making it "real" for them, IMO.

 

[CuNosecap]

Sorry, try this link. It worked for me. I will edit first post as well.
Rick


https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/11/bents-old-fort-living-history-conflict/

 

[CuNosecap]

Yep, Wis, I'm betting this thread is the proverbial, 'preaching to the choir". But we may gain some interesting insights and side stories. Thanks for posting.

 

[wiscoaster]

Sorry, try this link. It worked for me. I will edit first post as well.
Rick


https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/11/bents-old-fort-living-history-conflict/

That works for me. Thanks for posting.

 

[Antelope Pete]

Thanks for posting this. This issue has been an ongoing concern for awhile and really hits home for my wife and me since we volunteered at 2 events last year at Bent's Old Fort, her as a cook in the period kitchen cooking period style food and me as a hunter. We are not new to the interest in history but are new to living history and have spent a fair amount of time and money getting some stuff together.

It just get's me how they make statements without evidence that either imply or downright say that visitors don't like living history. Now they are using a political correctness approach to try and justify their position and the usual psychological approach that if you don't agree with them you're somehow backward.

We always liked living history portrayals at historic sites. Sometimes people doing 1st person and not coming out of character when we try and talk to them is frustrating and annoying but that can be modified and do some people take the role too seriously with their attitudes? Absolutely but that's no reason to do away with the whole practice.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Just as an aside- any time someone brings in a “ Consultant”, the outcomes are never very pleasant to the program or operation the “Consultant” hacks away at.
From personal experiences, I just shake my head at the faith people put into Consulting firms that have no stake in the matter.
Using Common Sense to make decisions for the future is a thing of the past.

 

[Polecat_Tom]

I had read this story earlier today and was going to post it as well.

I hope that my reading between the lines is incorrect and that this does not turn into the standard for all park service living history events.

 

[CuNosecap]

The line in the story about consultants making recommendations and writing a report, then walking away with little follow on responsibility, was very important. And so true. The story did not say where the consultant was from, or what their experience or credentials were, but one can easily guess a DC belt line think tank is at the core of all this.
Consultants are paid to give a fresh look. The status quo is always in question, as that is how these firms make money.

 

[The Crisco Kid]

History is written by the winners and, sorry to say, that's not us. It's a depressing thought but that's the way I see it.

 

[Jaeger]

I found an interesting and troubling article in the Colorado Sun about living history at Fort Bent Colorado near La Junta. The article tells the story for Fort Bent, named for two brothers, and the condition and future of the living history program there. I t seems the Nat Park Service hired a consultant to evaluate the site and its programs. While the conclusions drawn include relevant concerns about the condition of the aging infrastructure, the whole idea of the value of living history came under scrutiny. I have not been to Ft Bent, but have been to many similar sites. I have not participated in living history events nor am I a reenactor. But I very much appreciate the programs and hard work that it takes to keep these programs going, even when much of the work is done by free, volunteer labor.

I will let those more savvy on the topic read the article and opine, but this, to me smells of "wokeness" as the consultants review hinted at diversity etc, without quite going there. I would hate to think that what some value as tremendous learning opportunities for both the youth and adult "city dwellers", might be erased due to a stroke of the Nat Park Service pen held by a consultant from "who knows where".

Please take a look and read the article. It is not long and I am very interested to hear what the experienced folks here think.

Rick


new link attempt:

https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/11/bents-old-fort-living-history-conflict/

It might smell of "wokeness" to you, but I read the article and I was frustrated by the fact that they did not specifically describe what changes were being suggested, or were in the works, at Bents Fort. It is my opinion that the winds of change are blowing over the world of living history and reenacting. What we are encountering at our French Great Lakes history group are a couple of big problems: Our members are elderly, and no one is joining our club to back-fill, and...I believe people aren't as interested in history as they once were, and it was even limited 20-30 years ago. All this is going on as we are encountering a wave of younger administrators of parks, historical sites, etc. who have different interests and ideas. "The times, they are a-changin'"

 

[wiscoaster]

History is written by the winners and, sorry to say, that's not us. It's a depressing thought but that's the way I see it.

Winners come and winners go. Unfortunately in the digital age history is easily rewritten.

 

[Snooterpup]

Just as an aside- any time someone brings in a “ Consultant”, the outcomes are never very pleasant to the program or operation the “Consultant” hacks away at.
From personal experiences, I just shake my head at the faith people put into Consulting firms that have no stake in the matter.
Using Common Sense to make decisions for the future is a thing of the past.

Sounds like “Cancel Culture” hard at woke, or work.

 

[Sparks of Dutch Glory]

Our parks are probably on a property list of places to be leased out to the ChiComs

 

[mushka]

A country that ignores or alters it's history will not long be a country.

 

[deerstalkert]

by definition Legislators and consultants must, legislate and consultants must come up with different scenarios. in my mind they should all be deported along with politicians.

 

[Snooterpup]

A consultant or expert is engaged to find or harvest facts or truths that support the employer’s goals, not necessarily truths or facts discovered that negate or diminish those goals. The employer can and will usually dismiss any research that conflicts with their goals. This is how mule muffins have been pushed through many many times. Welcome to our brave new world.

 

[Antelope Pete]

PathfinderNC That's been my experience also. They're obligated to make major changes no matter the outcome.
When the park superintendent say's “It has a lot of built in costs, and it doesn’t reach as many people as we really have an obligation to." I have to wonder what does that even mean?

 

[Snooterpup]

PathfinderNC That's been my experience also. They're obligated to make major changes no matter the outcome.
When the park superintendent say's “It has a lot of built in costs, and it doesn’t reach as many people as we really have an obligation to." I have to wonder what does that even mean?

It means “This is on the chopping block and no long fits the new regime’s goals.”

 

[Carteret Kid]

Let me guess, the poor site condition was cause by funds for maintenance going to pay bureacrats.
plans orwellian style "reinterpitaions"