Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Furball Forum (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=201)
-   -   The foolishness of Civil War reenactors (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1352438)

Smashy 06-27-2011 20:24

The foolishness of Civil War reenactors
 
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...squicentennial

PBCounty 06-27-2011 20:41

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2XlSXcwJ3o

G33 06-27-2011 20:42

What gave it away...the cell phones?
:supergrin:

Kasinefect 06-27-2011 20:47

I saw this discussed on another forum. It turned into the usual north vs. south argument that we see here on GlockTalk for the most part.

arnold ziffle 06-27-2011 21:03

http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/a...e/47933d7c.jpg

RWBlue 06-27-2011 21:05

Why is is foolishness?

History should be remembered. If someone wants to dress up and remember history, so be it.

I remember going to living history museums as a kid. There was one out west that had a mountain man. There was one in the smokies that has pioneers. There was one in a plain state that had different pioneers. I got a kick out of all of them. I probably learned as much from the play actors as the books.

Spike 7.62 06-27-2011 21:18

I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

bowbender7 06-27-2011 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBCounty (Post 17554401)

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

goldenlight 06-27-2011 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike 7.62 (Post 17554617)
I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

Outstanding post!

The author of that article is, like most professional journalists, ill informed (at BEST) about what he wrote about.

Ruggles 06-27-2011 22:30

I agree the article was short sighted and closed minded about the importance of remembering history for history's sake. I am sure he is in the minority with his views.

G26S239 06-27-2011 22:39

Denigrating others because the author doesn't share their interests is bs. I wonder if Lafantasie would have been happy with opening up with real Cannon fire directed at the Fort at 4:30 am.:upeyes:

Nemesis. 06-27-2011 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWBlue (Post 17554550)
History should be remembered. If someone wants to dress up and remember history, so be it.

Yeah. I just read about a living history wild west re-enactment where one of the participants decided to use live ammo. Shot some tourists.

How's that for realism?

kirgi08 06-27-2011 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruggles (Post 17554972)
I agree the article was short sighted and closed minded about the importance of remembering history for history's sake. I am sure he is in the minority with his views.

Don't be.'08.

captainstormy 06-28-2011 00:17

Quote:

In fact, the "living historians" at Charleston fudged the history more than a little by firing their first shot at the fort at 6:45 in the morning rather than at the very famous historical time of 4:30 a.m.
Quote:

Then, when the mortar shot was finally fired to begin the reenactment, it barely sailed up 40 yards or so into the sky, although the noise it made was, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, "thunderous." But the newspaper also reported that the pyrotechnics left something to be desired: Rather than the "star shell" of a century and a half ago, the explosion seemed more like a "bottle rocket." The fireworks technician in charge of the mortar shot explained that the burst was "intentionally weak, as a safety precaution to the crowds of people on hand to witness the waterfront ceremony." So much for historical accuracy.
I read the link until I came across the above two quoted areas. Then I laughed at the author and closed the tab.

Does this guy honestly think the re enactments should start at 4:30am just because the battle did? How many people do you think would be there to see it? I doubt many were there at 6:45am either.

Apparently they should also use full power realistic explosions according to the author.

jlh2600 06-28-2011 01:47

I hate it when people get picky about "historical accuracy" in reinactments!

http://video.soha.vn/watch/2/video/456058

Highspeedlane 06-28-2011 02:20

Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

USMCSergeant 06-28-2011 02:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highspeedlane (Post 17555415)
Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

Good post

G26S239 06-28-2011 02:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highspeedlane (Post 17555415)
Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

:rofl:

12131 06-28-2011 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnold ziffle (Post 17554533)

:rofl:

GLWyandotte 06-28-2011 06:58

Hey it could be worse- it could be a Renaissance Festival.
Now those people are goofballs.

MadMonkey 06-28-2011 07:04

Quote:

and the occasional heart attack among overweight baby boomers who are trying, despite their huge girths and hardened arteries, to portray fit, young soldiers.
What a ****** :upeyes:

redbaron007 06-28-2011 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike 7.62 (Post 17554617)
I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

^^^
+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenlight (Post 17554946)
Outstanding post!

The author of that article is, like most professional journalists, ill informed (at BEST) about what he wrote about.

^^^
Bingo!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highspeedlane (Post 17555415)
Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

^^^
Great summary!


:wavey:

red

SheepleNoMore 06-28-2011 07:14

His mommy forgot to tell him not to say anything if he couldn't say something nice.

Detectorist 06-28-2011 07:17

I think reenactors are harmless and can serve a good purpose. That is, until they start trying to justify slavery by pointing out that some northern states had them, or how well some Blacks were treated in the South.

HexHead 06-28-2011 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis. (Post 17555143)
Yeah. I just read about a living history wild west re-enactment where one of the participants decided to use live ammo. Shot some tourists.

How's that for realism?

West World? Did he look like Yul Brenner?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:25.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.