ARGH! (A plea toReenactors and history lovers)

[Pleater]

I know the feeling - when I go to a folk festival and see people doing a dance that was specific to a particular day, and intertwined with other customs and done by a particular set of people - then I hear it being described as traditional - I have to grit my teeth and walk away.

In another part of my life I sometimes come across people making, and usually selling, costumes or individual garments which are simply wrong - wrong fibre, wrong method of producing the yarn, wrong style, wrong methods of production - big write up and huge claims for authenticity.

There is absolutely no point in protesting - they are the experts, not you - at least they are usually convinced of that, and in some cases they have taken out a patent and they are earning money or receiving applause and adulation, so they must be right and everyone else should shut up and not try to tell them they are wrong.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[fluter]

they are the experts, not you - at least they are usually convinced of that, and in some cases they have taken out a patent and they are earning money or receiving applause and adulation, ... :ootd:

I've been curious whether "prior art" is a disqualification for patent in the UK. Seems to me if their claim were true (garment made like this N-hundred years ago), that could be construed as prior art. :ootd:

[Pleater]

If they were trying to patent the real thing then yes, it should not be granted.

It doesn't stop people from trying though, and sometimes suceeding when the significance of the item is not realised.

There was an attempt to patent the 'Dorset Bonnet' some time back, but fortunately it never got anywhere because the would be patenter crowed too soon, to someone who knew where to send the information on its traditional roots.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[auld argonian]

Ah...never let the facts get in the way of a good story...or in this case a good fantasy.

So much of history (or what people think is history) is filtered through their present perspective. Most people like to think of their ancestors as noble types who strove mightily for the betterment of mankind but, face it, there have to be a few right bastards who grabbed with both hands and never thought twice.

What was the Hobbes quote about life being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"? That's a more historically accurate version of those times...do they portray that? How's their dental work? Got most of their teeth, do they?

See, Greg, that's the problem with being an anthropologist: you can discover the truth and tell people about it but they just don't want to believe it. They'd rather have the new-age pixie-$#!+ version.

Best

AA

[Bugbear]

Stop laughing at me!! I am not an Hobbit!!

Now that I got that out of the way...

... 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.

That's an interesting statement because it can be applied to many other things other than history. However, I have come across a few groups with wildly faulse versions of history, and also have seen somewhat similar reactions to the challange to the faulse history.

[NewGuise]

... I suggested they amend their web site to reflect what could be supported by the documentation.

The email I got back from them was horriffic, calling me every foul name under the sun. I had never read such vitriol!

...

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.

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.

[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