all great points. every one of them.

perhaps the most telling, though: "promote an interest in local history instead of something that took place thousands of miles away."

I still remember my first experience at one of these things.

I remember vividly the soldier guy, sitting on a little mound of dirt, peeling and eating a raw potato (which, it turns out, doesn't taste half-bad at all!).

Then later they got up, walked a bit, stood in a line, and pretended to rush each other. No gunshots, but they did light a cannon later in the day. It was really loud.

It was cool to attend, lotsa fun, and those guys who hadn't shaved looked all rugged and stuff in their ill-fitting uniforms.

I never got to be close enough to hear the soldiers talking about their patriotism, and how right they were to be killing fellow Americans from the next town over. I didn't hear any of them give the historical explanation of how this war took more American lives than any other...and all of the Americans killed....were by fellow Americans.

However, I am looking forward to next year's event. I understand Ray Appleton will be putting this one together, a celebration and re-enactment of the Germans fighting the Russians. They've even called my gramma to sit and tell her exciting story over smores about how her cousin was clinging to her mother's hand in the street before the Nazi soldier hacked off the mother's arm with a bayonet so she'd let go of her daughter. Mom was never seen again.

I hear there'll also be kettle corn.

Mmmm, I like kettle corn.

If you don't like it, don't go.

If this gets kids interested in a part of America's past and get them to read a history book instead of playing Nintendo, then good. Yes it's not 100% accurate, but it brings a part of America's past to people who normally probably wouldn't give a damn.

You are entitled to your opinion, though I doubt many would agree with you. What's next? Complaining about the jousting that occurs at Kearney every November at the Rennaisannce Faire because it also glorifies violence?

I'm not really into this kinda thing, but I could be persuaded to go if someone promises me that Ray Appleton will get thrown off his horse again.

Your opinions are based on a very limited knowledge of the Civil war and history in general. To say this event promotes slavery proves you have NO concept of the reasons the federals invaded the Confederacy. It is sad that most people like yourself lack the desire and the capacity to explore history with out an ethnocentric bias placed in you by public education. Please read a book, do some research ask some questions before you bloviate about topics as important as this. You are intitled to your opinion but when you try to present your limited view as fact you insult the memory of this conflict and the people who endured it hardships. This Blog will serve as my current example of how a little knowledge is a bad thing.
V

Donald, this blog is in a different vein than the topics you usually address, and I commend you for having the courage to express an opinion you must have known would attract views and comments contrary to your own.

Thanks for making me take the time to think about something I've never really considered before.

Dave?

What on earth are you talking about??

Bloviate on topics as important as this? The federals invaded the confederacy????

Please. Inform me beyond what I have read over and over in history books and from general's letters, etc etc.

This thing, I agree, wasn't JUST about slavery, but in essence? Yah. It was.

And Michael, Ren Faire fencing and theatre and dining is based on fantastical realizations of similar events throughout history...they don't mark a particular event or moment in history.

I don't think civil war re-enactments drive kids into history books. I think civil war re-enactments drive kids to think exactly what Donald said...that this particular war was an event to be celebrated, acted out, and enjoyed along with a snack-bar.

I'm in agreement completely with Donald on this one.

What? There's jousting at a Renaissance Faire in the same park? What is it with all the glorification in Fresno of long-ago violence? How about a little Shi'ite-on-Sunni action, just to bring things up to date? For goodness' sakes.

I am so glad to see someone else who feels the way I do about the reenactment. I see no point in glorifying any war ever. I am always surprized to see how popular it is. Thank you for standing up and making your point.

we have these all the time on the east coast,
(where, yeah, the battles were actually fought.)

-I've grown up in and around the whole 'history re-enacted,' world, as (at any given time,) there are
-samauri (sp?)
-renn faires
-civil war
-revolutionary war
-vietnam memorials
(even world war 1 and 2 aerial dogfights using real aircraft.)

-You can even go to Williamsburg (Va.) or Phila. and spend hours in structures and whole cultures that are 'period correct, and spend hours talking with people who are currently living as folks from those times did, (or are enacting the characters they've studied (Ben Franklin, Betsy Ross, Thomas Jefferson, (etc. etc.)'

-They even cross the delaware each winter and re-enact washington's surprise attack there.

--It's not just 'war re-enactors either,'
-There's usually somebody running around living the life of Emily Dickenson, or Johnny Appleseed, -Elvis, (you name it.)

-But most of these situaions (be they near or far history,) tend to be more 'culturally understood,' times where there was a basic understanding of what the themes were, (for this reason I think there's more WW2 and 'Nam themes -and not as much on Korea (etc.)
-There has to be something accessable for folks to understand (not always accurate and sometimes missing details, -but at least somewhat coherent with a publically held story-line.)

What really surprised me,(in contrast,)however were two things:

-Whereas on the East, (again, the battles/times are kind of in an 'understood,' mode?) -They're usually a bit on the 'safer,' side in terms of how they are presented
---and there are definite themes that are clear and not strayed from.

-Here on the West Coast (southern Cal.) there is a strong group of WW2 re-enactors, (nationally there has always been a strong interest in Third Reich uniforms, equipment, (etc.) everything but the 'lifestyle.'
-But, considering how presently violent and strong Nazi and Neo Nazi parties can be in the state (even in this area,) that form of ReEnacting made me uncomfortable on several levels.

-Also? In the 'really screwed up department.'
Earlier this summer, there was coverage of a church not far from here that had a slave auction, with actual 'fetching of a runaway slave,' -as a social event/fundraiser for a white church ---with lots of folks in blackface. (There were pictures provided on the postings.)
Lovely.

Even though the WW2 re-enactors were not anti-semitic? It creeped me out,)
-The church re-enacting slavery and capturing a slave in blackface? just made me want to puke.

I'm still chewing on it all as to why.
-This area is a lot more racist,(and blatant, --the 'blackface,' thing would never fly back east,)
-And (not surprising, considering the amount of death-camp survivors and their children who settled in the NE, --not many folks wanting to dress up as third reich back home (could it be that we have waaaaaay more Jews?)

Because we had several states and regions that had the battles,
Because there are lots of folks in the NE, Mid, and South Atlantic States who still have prison camp tattoos,

-we were raised with all of this as a part of us, and still have living history of our earliest settlers clear back to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.
(Not to mention Native Am. sites, structures, and people (re-enactors not necessary.) as well.

---Re-enactments often would go into the deeper meanings and different understandings as to why these events took place,
(understanding them both from the published 'political,' reasons --as well as the more coloquial personal ones. (AND)
'How we were doing now?,' (in contrast.)

Most of it is done with reverence for history, people and eras presented,
-and was both cathartic (and) educational.
(It was not done as parody or to be funny, and isn't some distant 'concept.')
-okay, 'Medieval Times,' (as presented in 'Garden State,' is a bit of a stretch, ---but RennHeads are big there, some of them rarely break character.)

Playing out killing people? (Personally,)
having been around it in real life, I don't like.
I've opted (personal choice,) to walk from that whole thing years ago. (but to each their own.)

What I did (and still do) feel very uncomfortable with?

Folks who (regardless, of the era, or scenario,)
feel that some sort of 'spirit,' of that time
(I've heard people speak of actually 'channelling,')
NEVER break character, who are so engulphed,
---that they no longer live in real life.

-I've seen it happen with war re-enactors, history re-enactors, renn-heads, dead-heads, roll-players
---even people who are hopelessly lost in great showtunes of the 20's - 30's - 40's.
(A lot in theatre.)

(Which, when you get down to it, is what re-enactors do: they're living historical theatre,
---some more technically accurate than others.)

What I find surprising:
If there was a place on the continent where a person could pick an era and choose to live in it, (total immersion,) and still be accepted as a viable part of society, -it would be California (even Fresno, as conservative as it is,)
-Example:

-Hippies who still feel burning down the Deans office and protesting everything is the answer to everything?

That and that there are folks out here who deliberately live in 'greaser,' culture, for example, -and 'aren't just putting on a few carshows on a weekend.'
They are on 24-7-365.
More fifties than my uncles and aunts were, and they mean it...
(okay, that's radical, not unhealthy, --but definitely makes a statement.)

-That something so 'garden variety' back home as a civil war re-enactment would warrant such critique sort of surprises me,
(...that is,
unless it IS being presented as some sort of the 'Confederates are the hip-cool-rebels,'
(and it's all some sort of Outlaw Country and Western Song slant
(ala)
'Indians become the new good-guys' in 70's Westerns.
(Come to think of it, ALL Westerns since the 70's.)

(which would be a bit shocking...
No other serious re-enactors (that I know of) take it that way,
-and they wouldn't do so back home where the battles were fought, either...)

(It's sorta like Bryan Ferry (Roxy Music) (earlier this year,) commenting that the 'SS were high fashion and ultra-noir cool...'
(er, well, um, yeah,
I guess so in some design aspects,
(I still see a lot of wartime clothing and paint schemes used, and they are stylish...)
---but there are overwhelming 'other,' aspects to the situation that reeeeeally cancels the positives out...

(It'd be interesting to see what the Civ-War re-enactors are really doing with the whole thing this far west...
(I hope it's not just a bunch of cliche'.)

I so totally agree with you. I think all this romantic hype and commercial enterprising of violence is really twisted. I was a medic in Vietnam and I can tell you that there's absolutley nothing worth reliving about that war or any other war. In many ways we're a terribly sick society. Also, I enjoy your movie reviews....mostly. I hold your opinion in high regard, and you seem like a genuinely nice person. Take care.

I agree with you. I find it a waste of time and money for this reanactment to go on every year. It's unrealistic to think that kids who attend this event will get them to read and be interested in history, if anything it will turn them off. My kids attended when they were in middle school and they thought it was ridiculous. I'm sure there are better things they can put on year after year. Who do we need to contact to see this event end?

Wow. I thought people were going to be hating on Donald's opinion. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Donald, I agree with your basic point that Civil War Re-enactments are at best useless and perhaps offensive, but the argument that secession runs contrary to the nation's founding principles is simply incorrect; in fact it is exactly what the colonies did nearly 100 years prior in the American Revolution. Jefferson wrote in the Dec. of Independence that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, but if that consent ceases to be given, which it was in the case of Southern secession, "...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." We may not agree with their rationale for doing so, but it certainly was well within their rights (their duty according to Jefferson) to do what they did.

I so agree! Broaden the horizons beyond the Civil War!
Present war as horrific in hopes of developing an anti-
war attitude in our youngsters who will be making those
important policy decisions for our country in the
future! Wish this could have been run on page 1A!

To Jason: Thanks for making a good point. I agree that it's important to remember one's perspective in relation to history, and it's certainly true that I'm coming at this discussion from a much different mindset (early 21st Century) than a Confederate on the eve of the Civil War.

One point I'd like to make: In the end, the most bankable justification for attempting to overthrow a sovereign government, which is what the Confederacy did by seceding, is success. If you're the winner, you get to rewrite the rules. That's what happened with the American colonists. The rules, as written by the Founding Fathers of the U.S. -- as set forth in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence -- did not provide for an orderly way for the various states to dissolve their bonds with the Union. They were supposed to be in it for the long haul. If secession were an option, why wasn't it included as a mechanism of government?

Yes, Jefferson wrote of the "duty" of throwing off a government if consent could not be given. Jefferson wrote many things, some of it in the passion of revolution, others years later in thoughtful analysis of this grand new experiment in democracy. He was one important man out of several; you could argue that James Madison, who led the effort to ratify the Constitution, was a far more important figure when it came to solidifying our form of government. (It's interesting that Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the raging debate over the ratification of the Constitution -- one of the most tenuous times in the fledgling nation's history and by no means a certainty, even with the addition of the Bill of Rights -- was taking place.)

The devil is in the details: Who determines the "consent" of the governed? A majority vote of white male residents of the states in question? A majority vote of the country as a whole? Though the idea of state's rights and Jefferson's concept of consent of the governed has been one of the arguments used in favor of the right of the South to secede, I by no means accept that it was a legitimate "right."

unfortunately I was unable to catch this re-enactment this past weekend.
(Lots on the calendar in Fresno, actually.)

I think the question still has to be brought up:

-Is this thing being done as a glorification of battle?

-Is this being spun (in this area, because it was not fought out here,) as 'the confederates are cool.' (which, actually COULD tie in (in quite the ugly manner) with some of the racism (that is way more prevalent here than back in the 'civil war,' states (Hence: a local church would do a slave auction, have a slave run, slave round-up (in blackface, etc.)

-If this is a 'historical re-enactment,'
(IE: Historical Theatre,)
-than I'd disagree with the views '..It won't get kids interested in history.'
-BECAUSE there is so much 'living history,' enacted and preserved back East, (as well as in the rest of the country?
I feel I grew up interested and with a better understanding of History,
-because I saw people living and acting out
'that life,''that era,' 'that culture.'
-(you do understand it better when you are experiencing it first hand.)

-Hang out in a Real Rev. War encampment in the winter, realize that a lot of these guys didn't even have decent shoes, -you think about it differently.

-Spend time in a cocpit of a WW1 German, American (or French) fighterplane,
-realize that Germany was sending up 8 to 10 year old boys (towards the end of the war,) to fight and fly,
--and you start thinking '...what is it that would drive people to do this? What were they thinking?
(you guys understand we went into the second world war with wing-and wire, ---and came out with jets and rockets, right? (do you grip how short a period of time that was to much such tech. leaps?)

And as for 'irrelevant,' 'other,' cultures.
--Okay, Mintz spoke of the Russian/German conflict and genocide there,(with horrific loss in his family,)
---You guys really know what that was all about?
--(do you care?)
--you want Action Hero's?
--have you ever heard of Ukranians and Poles?
--Anybody here know what a Kiwi is?
and what they did with us in Korea (and how, to kick back they knit sweaters?)

--Same goes when you immerse yourself in the culture of 'your enemies,'
-both past, distant past,
-and how they feel about it now.

-You 'get it,' when you're wearing similar clothing to what (whoever,) was fighting in, (or simply walking down the street in,)
--and you have to load, fire, and reload (with any degree of accuracy,) one of their weapons.
-It doesn't have to be all about 'war,' -but like it or not, war is a major aspect of our history as human beings, and still has a major impact right up to local neighborhoods.

On so many levels just reading about life in movies and books won't give you that.
(Every once in a while one does, and it is becoming more frequent, but still.)
-Even if it's a simple '...wow, this REALLY sucks, -you'll be affected and make decisions with a deeper understanding, (maybe understand where all sides were coming from, not just 'the advertised ours.')

-And if it's being re-enacted correctly,
there is no spin,
it's
'the facts as presented, the passions as they were/are,' and (again,)
the observer is faced with making their own conclusions on the situation (as well as what preceeded and came after.) --In other words it forces you to THINK.

What I find really surprising (about this area and this state,) is that there is so little 'history,' preserved (much less enacted.) -and it sounds like the Civil War enactments are being taken as 'so much pagaentry.'

-And I think that furthers the disjointed relationship between (the SanJoaquin Valley,) and the rest of the state
-if not country.

-Okay, So you guys find the Civil War irrelevant,
(you never owned slaves,)
-this place was basically built and fueled by 'lower class,' 'laborers,(who are viewed as both 'disposable,' and 'a threat do american society, (danger to health system, financial and living systems, etc. etc.'
and
I see plenty of 'plantation,' mindset to this day around here,)
(but fine, you have no slaves.)

-k.

-Is anyone retelling or re-enacting a (faithful and authentic) settling of California?

-(I'm not talking 'cutsey,'
-and it doesn't have to shout out 'Donner Party,' every other minute,
----but is anyone acting out anything 'clinically authentic?'

-Are there any memorials being spoken of?,
-any preservation or complete understanding of Japanese Interrment Camps?
(I heard there were some somewhere near here... have no idea as to where, and I've been here for two years... you'd think there'd be something posted?

--Does anyone really talk about,
-and re-enact how difficult it was for
'okies,' to settle here? (Like how real was 'Grapes of Wrath?')

-How about what the different nations of Nat. American and Mexican Indians
---or even a broadcast (as in thorough throughout the schools) understanding of area history
-both good and bad.

-I mean seriously:

On the one hand, Fresno's all ballyhoo'd about finding some 'lost tunnels beneath Chinatown.'
(after it basically tore down almost all of it.
--and the big buzz is:
'...there was a tunnel that led from the brothels and opium dens over to the 'respectable-white,' section of town that was a major thorofare, ---but that got blown up.'

(I find that circumstance, --as well as people's surprise and fixation on that legend, (and the hypocracy that defines it,) to be kind of telling.)

-Further: There's voiced disfavor over one country refusing to acknowlege a historical genocide of a huge population (unique to this area.)
-And we GET that THAT history not being told or acknowledged is wrong,(and makes that it happened all the more worse.)

Yet,
---both are simple 'denials,' 're-writes,' or full bulldozing of history.
-can you say 'selective memory disorder?'

Maybe the North VS South aspect has been taken over here as some sort of 'really alt. country party.'
(Which happens when people who were not part of real history 'celebrate,' something and it looses it's footing, becomes cliche', and is reinterpreted (because of time and distance, --it can be quite innocent and just the way some folks get their arms around something that is so foreign.)

But not acknowledging one's history?,
-not living with it,
-glamorizing it?
(if only to understand how to grow and evaluate our culture against it?)

---well you know what they say about being doomed to repeat it.

(Which, sadly?
Considering the refusal of Most Fresnans to intermix with other cultures,
-and the hostile rejections of 'new incomings,'
(just like the 'old incomings,')
-'Repeating History' (bad or good,) doesn't seem to be that big a worry.

(Maybe because so many folks still feel the same?)

My response is at my blog:

http://gustavsgroupie.blogspot.com/

wettowel: I actually am a Pole. I have heard of myself. :D Na Zdrowie!

My fam, the Jurczykowski's, came to this country around the time the German's began their occupation of Poland, only a few years after Poles were allowed to have their own country following Russian oppression. I've always wondered what happened to those how stayed behind in Poland.

It seems more like an excuse for people to play "dress-up war" and become GI Joe's than to honor a part of American history. The real soldiers didn't get to go to the concession stands at the end of the day, then head off to their clean, safe homes.

wet towel, e.f. in mindhub, CL rnr, void, etc., PLEASE shorten you posts. You are everywhere. Now this is one more place that I have to scroll through to get to the next posting.

to: 'no more wet towel,'

-yep, it's me...

(I live here, I read here, I write here, (here being Fresno.)
-Actually on Beehive I usually try to write short posts, (if any.) -it's more given to that, so I try to abide by it.)

-This subject,
both for me and others is not a 'quip friendly,'one,though,
so I wrote to 'it,'
(not so much to 'the setting.')
--though I thought the one post'r who just gave a link to his blog a good idea, (one of the only other writers who saw a positive in re-enacting history btw...)
(maybe I'll consider that next time.)

--as for my being 'everywhere?'
(and you're having to scroll?)
-I think that would mean that you're right there too?, (reading, scrolling, whatever)
-which means you can write what you feel,(or not) as well.

Free country, my friend, free country.

...don't get your knickers in such a twist,though,
on this site for me, it's usually not a lot of commentary,
-just found this post (and the various other writer's views worth the conversation.

oh yeah,('no more wet towel,')
FYI?
--I've never published on craigslist rant-n-raves, (just for the record.)
-sold a truck there, but that's it.

While I think we may respectfully disagree on this point, I'd argue a mechanism for secession was protected by the 10th amendment. The constitution does not, as tends to be overlooked (not necessarily by you, Donald), grant rights, but protect them. (i.e. the 1st amendment does not grant a right to freedom of speech, but a protection against government infringement of a natural right).

All that to say the Constitution was never intended as a litany of what the states (or individuals) could/could not do, but the powers and limits and design of the federal government. The states opted into the Union, they were not created under its auspices. In the centuries since it was adopted, we've consistently increased the power and role of the federal government at the expense of the autonomy of the states. Whether this is a good thing, remains up for debate, I think.

I am glad you bring up the differences of opinion between Jefferson, Madison, and other "Founding Fathers" because we too often lump them all together as though they were all of one mind and one vision. Hamilton wanted the president elected for life as a veritable monarch, Madison was opposed to the creation of the senate as counter to his belief in proportional representation & opposed to the continuation of slavery even though he was the most ardent supporter of a constitution which provided for its continuation for at least 20 years. George Mason opposed the Constitution, even with the Bill of Rights. Jefferson had his doubts about it when he got back from inciting the Jacobins. The Federalist papers were published. The Anti-Federalist papers published as a counterpoint (and read today, seem eerily prescient).
It was a fascinating time in the marketplace of ideas that has sadly been reduced to monolithic mush in the history books.

Your final point, though, is a great conundrum of republican (small "r") governance. We elect representatives to vote our interests in the legislatures. Of course, to know if their voting in those bodies represents our interests, we have to know the issues, and if we know the issues sufficiently to make that determination, why do we need representatives in the first place? And if we don't know the issues well enough to determine, how do we know our interests are being represented at all? And perhaps most importantly, do the elected have a equal responsibility to all in his/her constituency or is there a greater burden of responsibility those that voted for him/her? How can we have a president who would decry half the country as America-hating socialists or one who would label half the country uncaring, homophobic, racists successfully represent all of us?

But perhaps I have strayed too far away from Civil War re-enactments.

so, I went to my first civil war reenactment this weekend. My thoughts: a little more authentic than the highland games, but not at all reality. Okay, it was a lot more realistic than the highland games. But I don't getbthe feeling that they're trying to pass it off as authentic or real. Its a reenactment. They call it that. They do want to dress and behave as close as possible to hood the soldiers lived, but again, its a reenactment. Its like going to see a play. Do I expect every play about war to also be knee deep in blood? No, but I imagine they will use sound effects (canon fire).

As for whether or not the historical society spends too much te on this one event, if you don't like it, join the group and lobby for change there.

Finally, does it present an unrealiztic picture of the southern army? Not that i saw. I didnt roam their camp so i wont act like i know. But there was nothing a out the battle reenactment to make me think that. However, i will say that there were people the crowd that definitely felt the south and its key ideals needed to be better represented. The guy in front of me was spouting off how "politically correct California" wouldn't let the south "win" a battle. I wonder how long it took him to take his foot out of his mouth after they won on Saturday?

I wouldn't care about Wet Towel's length if he would just write in complete sentences.

Maybe that's it Jaguar. Reading random thoughts without a complete sentence.

"It gives people an idea of how soldiers in that era lived and fought"

You then dishonestly assert that "to say that a reenactment "shows war" is playing preaty lose with the facts."

I did not see anywhere in the statememt you provided where any of the reenactors asserted what you claim. Nor did I find where in your article any of them stated "shows war".
What you do demonstrate is reenactors asserting that a reenactment can give people a idea of how soldiers in that era lived and fought. Now I don't see any honest translation from, giving people an idea of how soldiers in that era lived and fought to "shows war". It would appear that you have an agenda, and one that doesn't much care if it is acheived through dishonest spinning.

"It's a way to teach people about history.

My response: If that's the case, then why do we always reenact the Civil War?"

So your point is that a person who only teaches one particular period of history can't really be interested in teaching that period?

In point of fact reenactors often do reenact many different periods of time, and many have nothing to do with war.
Would you then be willing to favor having many reenactments each year, for different time periods. That seems hardly unlikely after reading your attack on reenacting on moral objectionable groups. Your arguement here lacks consistency.