 |
| President Woodrow Wilson from Wikipedia |
The balance, and many times it can be a struggle, is to weigh conserving the natural and historic objects with everything that entails and to provide for the enjoyment of those who visit them unimpaired. This struggle is what I will be looking at this month.
In the 1960s, the centennial of the Civil War began with a reenactment at the battle of Bull Run/Manassas on the battle field. Reenactments are not a new thing in American history; different groups had put on reenactments at various times before for different reasons and had wide varieties of historical accuracy associated with them. In general, they have become more sophisticated and more accurate and, unfortunately, more commercial. Historical accuracy in clothing standards was non-essential; it was the display that counted. Stories have come down through the ages about modifying sport coats and jeans and of firing shotguns and bb-guns. If clothing looked grey or blue, it passed (things have changed much since then, but I see some people's gear and wonder sometimes). Also, the events' attendees left a lot of trash and road ruts. Some questioned whether it was acceptable to play-fight where real men bled and died. For the reenactors' many misguided and thoughtless actions, the National Park Service banned all further reenactments from the National Parks and this rule is in effect today, regardless of what era of conflict that battle took place. The 100th anniversary of the Battle of Bull Run/Manassas was the last battle reenactment of the National Parks. Reenactments, however, continued on private property and some State Parks and, as mentioned, have become progressively better in terms of authenticity standards, litter removal, and environmental impact.
Fifty years have passed since that rule was made and the 150th anniversary season has arrived. As a response to the many questions they get on a wide variety of topics, one of the questions was "Why are there no battle reenactments on National Park grounds?" To answer this question, the National Park System made a video that addressed that very question, and it is featured below...
"Essentially, you are calling reenactors dangerous, destructive, and disrespectful. I find YOU disrespectful."
"Ethics, my hind leg, just wimps in government get-ups."
"This is unbelievably insulting to reenactors of any era."
"Documented? Children picking up loose black powder? Reenactors shooting live rounds at each other? The NPS says they like living history interpretors [sic] helping but according to this video....I guess not."
On the other side, there were other comments that saw this issue differently....
"As a reenactor with a well known group. I totally respect and understand the policy!"
Reenactment has always been one horrible accident away from being shut down. The NPS is not run for reenactors. That said, the vast majority of reenactors and reenactments are very safe and not destructive or unsympathetic to those they portray."
"I believe the NPS is correct in banning battle re-enactments....pointing weapons at other people or even in their general direction is bad policy and a fundamental safety violation. Its stupid people."
"There is no need for reenactments in the park system There are living history demonstrations who show how the weapons were fired and tell all about the battle and what the soldiers went through....Battlefields are not playgrounds for reenactors to pretend that they are living in the past."
And this can (and does) go on. I must admit there is an implied depreciating tone that this video has which does not put reenactors in a good light. I think I would like to make a distinction between terms Living Historian and Reenactor. I have mentioned in the past that I identify with the former rather than the latter because "I take this a bit more seriously". I wish to take a second to define this in a broad, general terms that are flawed and not perfect as a Living Historian is any individual of any time period or era who interprets themselves or their surroundings in costume or uniform. I am defining a Reenactor is a person who dresses in costume for a purpose, usually doing battle demonstrations with little interpretation. It isn't exact but it is a working definition.
Despite all this, I think this is good policy for a governmental entity to have, even though it means I will never do a battle reenactment on the actual soil of a real major battle. Here are some of my thoughts and opinions based on the video's 3 categories.
1) Ethics. You can't argue against the ethics of this. Real people lived, struggled, and died here on this spot that has been specifically chosen to be set apart as being that we as a society and culture want to protect and preserve. As a Living Historian, I have seen some dumb things done while 'dead' at a reenactment: games of Marco Polo, leaning up on an elbow to watch the battle like watching a TV at home, making chit chat, and having a joking conversation during 'Taps' which was played on a bugle at the end of a battle before 'Recall'. All of these are examples fly in the face of people who say that they reenact to preserve the memory, honor the dead, and 'do it just like they did it'. Living Historians and reenactors are a fun-loving bunch but we sometimes forget ourselves. It's like playing a kazoo in a requiem or playing paintball in a cemetery. If we mean to honor our fallen, then let's do it, and a battle reenactment may not be the best way to do so. If we feel strongly about reenacting on real battleground, some of the private battles and state parks have real battlefields that can have a battle reenacted on it because the governing bodies of those places are different. Also, the carnival-like feel of some reenactments that support the event seems a rude way to make money from carnage and the deaths of people who were fighting and dying for a cause in which they believed.
 |
Climbing in Harpers Ferry "Mennen's Borated Talcum Toilet
Powder" from http://www.pbase.com/image/49162350
|
 |
Even though an anniversary battle have a glimpse of the scope
of the battle, it is rarely personal.
From http://maineatwar.bangordailynews.com/2013/09/19/
billy-yanks-and-johnny-rebs-camped-a-valley-apart-at-gettysburgs-150th/
|
3) Resource Protection. This is where the balance of use and protection I mentioned earlier comes into play. The parks are there to use for enjoyment of the visitor, but to the expense of the resource. I would venture that the average reenactor or Living Historian does not consider the environmental impact of their collective presence on a natural resource, intentional or unintentional. Heavy machinery, fire pits, crowds of reenactors and visitors, and their resulting trash and waste are probably the biggest impact to the resources. If you look at the grand spectacle of putting on an anniversary sized reenactment of the last 5 years there was a lot of environmental impact. Tractors hauling machinery, grandstands, booths, equipment, etc, compacting the soil or worse with rutting when the soil gets wet (and it always rains at a major reenactment). Fire is another concern for fear of a larger out-of-control fire that will damage the landscape and wildlife. While reenactors aren't prone to carelessness around fires, the risk remains with more that usual fire pits, fire from candles, and tobacco use. Protecting the landscape is important to the National Parks as well as protecting monuments, waysides, artifacts, as well as the natural environment. One point brought to my attention by a colleague is that larger parks lease land to farmers and a reenactment could interfere with that agreement between a local farmer and a NPS unit.
Another thing brought up was the scope and accuracy of the reenactments. I think if you got all the reenactors and Living Historians world-wide to come to Gettysburg for a big reenactment, we may get close to the numbers of soldiers present on the battlefield when it actually happened. Even if they followed the battle scenario, that plan may be modified to emphasize certain parts of one battle, like "Pickett's Charge" rather than smaller aspects such as "Spangler's Spring". Large anniversary battles also mean that the action often takes place at a considerable distance to the crowds in the paying grandstands, which makes a great spectacle but is far less personal or meaningful. These battles rarely do loudspeaker explanations of what is going on or why the battle is happening like it is. Further, battles themselves are not accurate with the sheer lack of any casualties in the first 5 minutes and a lemming-like wave of deaths toward the last 10 minutes of battle.
 |
The crowd can get closer in interpretive
programs and ask questions, which is what I
like about interpretive programs.
|
So rather than trying to get accuracy and scope correct, the National Parks focus on smaller, specific programs that can be meaningfully interpreted. I have participated in a number of National Park interpretive programs and I really enjoyed them. Even the makers of this video are excited that Living History programs and demonstrations are conducted on their property and are enthusiastic about doing them! It is not like they don't want Living Historians, reenactors or interpreters to do demonstrations; they fully know the power and impact of a good costumed interpretive program can have on a visitor. They are interested in making a personal connection to their resources, rather than just an entertaining show. From what I have observed, there is very little to no crowd interpretation at large anniversary battle other than what is on their programs. The smaller ones are much better at interpretive themselves, but only if the volunteer Living Historians feel motivated to; see my blog post on what that is like. Each National Park wants to do interpret its own unit and make it accessible to the visitors and they use a variety of interpretive methods and programs to draw visitors; reenactment battle just is not a method they use.
The last point I wish to make is the financial cost of putting on a reenactment. There is a lot of time, planning, effort, and money that goes into a reenactment and even more so for a large anniversary battle. I realize that we will not likely have a humongous Civil War anniversary since the 150s are over but this case can be made for other conflicts anniversary battles as well. It is a consideration of whether having a large or small reenactment event is worthwhile. Even if it were allowed, the efforts put into making a reputable reenactment are difficult and expensive and come with all the problems I've already mentioned and probably a few I have overlooked. Reenactors want amenities: access to food vendors, firewood, straw for bedding, and powder reimbursement for cannon crews, but the event needs portable toilets, seating, shade, an emergency response team, parking, and event logistics and flow for not only reenactors but visitors as well. The National Parks cannot sustain these expenses, not even for anniversaries, because the government budget continues to underfund the National Park Service. Parks that are approved to open are being postponed, maintenance is backlogged for want of funds, and parks have to do increasingly more with decreasingly less each year die to budget cuts. There has been a 12% decrease in total budget for the NPS in the last 5 years, a reduction of $364 million, according to the National Park Conservation Association, an advocacy group for the NPS. In view of the decreasing operating budget of the National Park and the expense of putting on a reenactment of a decent size with all the problems mentioned and all the potential things that could go wrong, the National Parks simply have no choice but to stick to this policy for the time being.
 |
| NPS logo from their website |
Those are some of the reasons I think this policy is good. Not great, but good. I am sure I am missing a few points. I am also sure I will be getting comments like "How dare you call yourself a reenactor and support the Parks on this policy" and "You are just sucking up to them" and "You are a sell-out traitor". On the other side, I think the National Parks should revisit and reconsider this policy again. The policy was enacted in the 1960s as a reaction to poor planning on everyone's part and much has changed in awareness on environmental impact and safety since then. I think if it is well done, a battle reenactment could be another interpretive tool in the NPS "tool-box" that helps people connect to the resource that they are trying to protect, so long as there is an interpretive aspect to it, rather than just a show.
When I had originally thought of this topic, I intended a more balanced view of for-and-against but after looking into the topic and doing research I changed my mind about the policy. A reenactment on Park grounds needs to be worthwhile from the Park's perspective as a money making event or an education experience. If it is a money making event, then what are the moral and ethical questions about making money from a military conflict? Will it be profitable or would the expense be paid off after all accounts are settled? If it is an education experience, how can it be an experience that justifies the expense, the maintenance, environmental, and safety concerns? From a Living Historian perspective, why do we need to reenact on the exact grounds in the first place? The power of place is important but is it required? Keep in mind that "it would be cool" is not going to convince officials. If it is to 'honor the fallen', the question will be asked,"Are there other ways to honor the fallen that don't involve changing government policy?" The Park system does not exist as an exclusive playground for weekend warrior reenactors. It is their turf and their rules. In the long run, I think there is room for open discussion about having a reenactment in the Parks, but I do not think that the policy banning such events will change very soon.
