ARGH! (A plea toReenactors and history lovers)

[auld argonian]

They must have ment the "Other" curator.

Matt has an evil twin? OMG!

Best

AA

[thanmuwa]

........
I want to call them out on their BS, but I know they won't care. What should I do?

I wonder if they have Jim Fitzpatrick's permission to use his artwork on their pages?

Co-incidentally and off-topic, Jim Fitzpatrick drew probably the most famous illustration in the world, Che Guevara-Lynch, to give him his full name.

[Salvianus]

Every year at the Highland Games, these guys show up and do a demonstration.

There nearest to the SCA that I've seen here in Blighty is LARPing, which strikes me as quite good fun (though not nearly as appealing to the sort of Living History I usually do, or 'battle re-enactment' which I've done a bit of). I kind of approve of the creative playfulness of Ren Faires and I actually do some sci-fi cosplay at conventions with my mates for our own amusement.

I think that even the best researched historical re-enactment has to be understood as filling in a lot of blanks between the evidence and involving fewer diseases and more fillings than the reality, so in a way we're all on a sliding scale of make believe from a dry archaeological presentation to, well, something like this. Most re-enactors I've ever discussed it with are comfortable with exactly the level of compromise they make, no more, no less, so I've learned to judge not. Myself, I find talking to the public in English more edifying than late vulgar Latin and stuff the authenticity

However, I share your puzzlement at its connection to either Highland games or the time period cited. That's my main period of interest and I'd be uncomfortable with the thought that what I've seen is understaood by the public to be historical re-enactment.

That said, its not worth getting steamed over. I would write to the organisers pointing out some of the major anachronisms and suggest that they ask the group to quietly any drop the claims to be historical or educational at the event in the interests of protecting the public from confusion and preserving the integrity of the games. The same display with a different introduction could be quite entertaining!

[Bigkahuna]

There nearest to the SCA that I've seen here in Blighty is LARPing, which strikes me as quite good fun (though not nearly as appealing to the sort of Living History I usually do, or 'battle re-enactment' which I've done a bit of). I kind of approve of the creative playfulness of Ren Faires and I actually do some sci-fi cosplay at conventions with my mates for our own amusement.

I think that even the best researched historical re-enactment has to be understood as filling in a lot of blanks between the evidence and involving fewer diseases and more fillings than the reality, so in a way we're all on a sliding scale of make believe from a dry archaeological presentation to, well, something like this. Most re-enactors I've ever discussed it with are comfortable with exactly the level of compromise they make, no more, no less, so I've learned to judge not. Myself, I find talking to the public in English more edifying than late vulgar Latin and stuff the authenticity

However, I share your puzzlement at its connection to either Highland games or the time period cited. That's my main period of interest and I'd be uncomfortable with the thought that what I've seen is understaood by the public to be historical re-enactment.

That said, its not worth getting steamed over. I would write to the organisers pointing out some of the major anachronisms and suggest that they ask the group to quietly any drop the claims to be historical or educational at the event in the interests of protecting the public from confusion and preserving the integrity of the games. The same display with a different introduction could be quite entertaining!

If that doesn't work we can go down and cut their heads off!:buttkick:

[sathor]

As one who teaches the literature and culture of medieval Britain to students interested only in knights in shining armour or a world in which everyone is a Good Christian ...

I think it was Sophomore English when we did King Arthur, whichever year it was...

anyways, the teacher had the class brainstorming about what we knew about King Arthur. She had an honor student writing on the big sheet of paper the various things we knew. I pipped up with "Arthur was a Bastard." (Which was really fun to say, btw.)

The poor girl turns a bit white, the room gets quiet, and the silence was broken by the teacher. "He was. Write it down." but the poor honor student still stared like a deer in the headlights. She did finally write it out, but it was some kind of weird shock to her system.

[macwilkin]

As one who teaches the literature and culture of medieval Britain to students interested only in knights in shining armour or a world in which everyone is a Good Christian (that is, in perfect agreement with their own view of Christianity), I have contended with some amazing opposition in the classroom. And I obviously can't just walk away from that. The tactic I now employ there is to be really explicit in the first few minutes of the first class about what they can and cannot expect to encounter in the course, even stating that if I do not manage to offend them at some point I will not have done my job as instructor. And that if they can't prove me wrong at some point they haen't done their job as students. That pretty much ensures that nothing I say can offend, because they're prepared for it, but it also ensures some lively discussions. And fewer really stupid reenactor moments.

Well said, sir.

But it is amazing how some people become so attached to their particular preconceived notion of history that they can willingly blind themselves to any evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, Matt. I've experienced this first hand in many places, from the classroom to the national battlefield where I worked.

T.

[Larry124]

...But it is amazing how some people become so attached to their particular preconceived notion of history that they can willingly blind themselves to any evidence to the contrary.

Re-enactors or re-creationists or preservationists and their ilk (think in this case mythical historical entertainers) somewhat live in a world of their own making.

But re the quote clip: Not amazing, but rather common -- for well or for ill. We're surrounded by it. Perhaps contemporary times have always been.

My view is that history can be and should be well read, but can likely not be really known.
Although I agree that the "what was not" can be better known than the "what was".

[auld argonian]

This is soooo strange...the following book came up in my Amazon.com recommendations this morning:

http://www.amazon.com/Movie-Medieval..._bxgy_b_text_b

Movie Medievalism: The Imaginary Middle Ages

...which seems to deal with that revisionist history sort of thing. Apparently there's a school of psychology and philosophy that attempts to explain why people "readjust" history in order to make it agree more with their particular outlook on life.

It's, like, Deja Vu all over again.


Best

AA

[sathor]

...which seems to deal with that revisionist history sort of thing. Apparently there's a school of psychology and philosophy that attempts to explain why people "readjust" history in order to make it agree more with their particular outlook on life.

It's, like, Deja Vu all over again.

You mean like why Jesus is often White instead of something more Arabian/Greek?

Or the idea that in the time of Columbus, people really thought the world was flat? (The glove was first made the same year Columbus left. They knew.)

And so on....

[davedove]

Or the idea that in the time of Columbus, people really thought the world was flat?

Of course it's not flat; there are mountains and the like.