airfrogusmc
Suspended
- Messages
- 752
- Location
- Oak Park Illinois
Mr Bern, I caught it. One thing I've noticed is most re-enactors don't share the same physique as the folks they are portraying. Maybe a re-enacting boot camp would help?
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Re-enacting.
- Thread starter Wild Root
- Start date
- Status
MrBern
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,469
Yeah, you dont see too many guys built like Audie Murphy in this hobby.
Vladimir Berkov
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,291
- Location
- Austin, TX
airfrogusmc said:
The truly hardcore reenactors are fit, although there are many reenactors who are not. Campaign-style events with lots of marching usually separate the two.
Mojave Jack
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,785
- Location
- Yucca Valley, California
A little late, but nonetheless
I know I'm late in joining in on this discussion, but I'd like to add my two cents.
First off, I'm currently in my 22nd year of military service (five years Marine Corps, and the rest Air Force), combined active duty and reserves. I've been lucky in my career. We were in the boats and ready when Qadhafi backed down, Beruit was quiet when we were there, as was Bosnia-Herzegovina. I was packed for Afghanistan when they decided they needed me more in Saudi Arabia. Still, I often wonder how I would have performed in combat. That's one thing that draws me to re-enacting.
There are too many opinions here to respond to individually, but I think one thing is being overlooked: there are as many reasons to re-enact as there are re-enactors. I've seen extremes from stitch counters that just walk around and criticize other people's gear to folks that just like to observe from the sidelines. Sure, there are those that re-enact because they glorify the killing and violence of war, but the difference between those types of people and the majority of re-enactors is like the difference between people who visit art museums and people that steal those works of art. Both appreciate good art, but from a wholly different perspective and motivation. For myself, I'm very much in the living history side of things, but I can respect those that want to immerse themselves entirely.
I think the other misconception is about what exactly is being recreated. I don't think it's fair to compare re-enacting a battle to re-enacting a death camp, because the motivation for recreating a battle is to recreate the heroism, not the horror. I also think people relate to the experience on a number of different levels, whether it is for the comraderie, the opportunity to learn, or just a return (for a moment) to a time when duty was clear and life was not so ambiguous (from a current perspective, of course; there was plenty of uncertainty for the people experiencing it the first time around). I think Wild Root's story of eating from an authentic mess perfectly illustrates that point; clearly it was the element of comraderie that made that moment enjoyable. Though Bronislaw Malinowski was talking about ethnography in the South Pacific, I think his point is applicable here, too:
"Though it may be given to us for a moment to enter into the soul of a savage and through his eyes to look at the outer world and feel ourselves what it must feel to him to be himself ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù yet our final goal is to enrich and deepen our own world?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s vision, to understand our own nature and to make it finer, intellectually and artistically" (from Argonauts of the Western Pacific1984 [1922]:518).
I know I'm late in joining in on this discussion, but I'd like to add my two cents.
First off, I'm currently in my 22nd year of military service (five years Marine Corps, and the rest Air Force), combined active duty and reserves. I've been lucky in my career. We were in the boats and ready when Qadhafi backed down, Beruit was quiet when we were there, as was Bosnia-Herzegovina. I was packed for Afghanistan when they decided they needed me more in Saudi Arabia. Still, I often wonder how I would have performed in combat. That's one thing that draws me to re-enacting.
There are too many opinions here to respond to individually, but I think one thing is being overlooked: there are as many reasons to re-enact as there are re-enactors. I've seen extremes from stitch counters that just walk around and criticize other people's gear to folks that just like to observe from the sidelines. Sure, there are those that re-enact because they glorify the killing and violence of war, but the difference between those types of people and the majority of re-enactors is like the difference between people who visit art museums and people that steal those works of art. Both appreciate good art, but from a wholly different perspective and motivation. For myself, I'm very much in the living history side of things, but I can respect those that want to immerse themselves entirely.
I think the other misconception is about what exactly is being recreated. I don't think it's fair to compare re-enacting a battle to re-enacting a death camp, because the motivation for recreating a battle is to recreate the heroism, not the horror. I also think people relate to the experience on a number of different levels, whether it is for the comraderie, the opportunity to learn, or just a return (for a moment) to a time when duty was clear and life was not so ambiguous (from a current perspective, of course; there was plenty of uncertainty for the people experiencing it the first time around). I think Wild Root's story of eating from an authentic mess perfectly illustrates that point; clearly it was the element of comraderie that made that moment enjoyable. Though Bronislaw Malinowski was talking about ethnography in the South Pacific, I think his point is applicable here, too:
"Though it may be given to us for a moment to enter into the soul of a savage and through his eyes to look at the outer world and feel ourselves what it must feel to him to be himself ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù yet our final goal is to enrich and deepen our own world?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s vision, to understand our own nature and to make it finer, intellectually and artistically" (from Argonauts of the Western Pacific1984 [1922]:518).
Baron Kurtz
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 12,784
Little late, too ...
Didn't see the show. Sounds terrible. From the corny show name ("Gray's Anatomy" being the standard human anatomy text for anatomy students) onwards. I would expect nothing less than a crappy plot. This is why i don't have TV ..
bk
MrBern said:
Didn't see the show. Sounds terrible. From the corny show name ("Gray's Anatomy" being the standard human anatomy text for anatomy students) onwards. I would expect nothing less than a crappy plot. This is why i don't have TV ..
bk
Not to draw this discussion back into argument, but here's what I see:
There is a certain history, romance and fun to the WWII era. If it were all doom and gloom, no one would revisit it. But the music of the time, experiences of family, uniforms and all that are a lot of fun for many people.
Does reenacting recreate history? No. Does it glorify war? You can argue that. But if you get really lost in it, and decide that's for you, suprise! You can't go fight in WWII. It's over.
While war is a horrible activity, you essentially have people out there who can derive some benefit, history, education and FUN from it. What better war than one where everyone gets to go home, and a real dispute has not taken place?
At the end of the day, no one is going to resurrect National Socialism, or start building B-29's again because they had such a blast over a weekend. It's just fun, and even if you wanted to do it for real, you can't. Built in safety feature to me. As many have echoed, to each his own.
There is a certain history, romance and fun to the WWII era. If it were all doom and gloom, no one would revisit it. But the music of the time, experiences of family, uniforms and all that are a lot of fun for many people.
Does reenacting recreate history? No. Does it glorify war? You can argue that. But if you get really lost in it, and decide that's for you, suprise! You can't go fight in WWII. It's over.
While war is a horrible activity, you essentially have people out there who can derive some benefit, history, education and FUN from it. What better war than one where everyone gets to go home, and a real dispute has not taken place?
At the end of the day, no one is going to resurrect National Socialism, or start building B-29's again because they had such a blast over a weekend. It's just fun, and even if you wanted to do it for real, you can't. Built in safety feature to me. As many have echoed, to each his own.
Maj.Nick Danger
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,469
- Location
- Behind the 8 ball,..
You don't have TV?!
I don't either! :cheers1: Only time I watch the dad - blamed thing is at a friend's house. And we're watching The Three Stooges or some other retro-educational programming.
Baron Kurtz said:
I don't either! :cheers1: Only time I watch the dad - blamed thing is at a friend's house. And we're watching The Three Stooges or some other retro-educational programming.
indieflmkr
Familiar Face
- Messages
- 92
- Location
- Hudson, WI
To Reenact or not to Reenact...
First of all,
I'd like to say this, for the most part, has been a very mature discussion with insightful comments on bothsides of the issue and I commend everyone for such a "healthy" debate. I'm not sure what this means -- but I fear were this conversation on on of the Reenactor Boards it would not have remained nearly as civil or mature.
I'd like to offer my theory on reenacting and some thoughts.
I am a WWII reenactor and have been since 1999. I portray a U. S. military combat photographer. I am also by nature - a pacifist, I generally consider myself "liberal" about most social issues and find war a horrible and despicable aspect of human society and a very sad fact of our collective history. This is partly why I am a reenactor.
Reenacting as "eduction" functions through something called "First Person" interpretation -- something used by museums, parks and various other "professional" historic places to engage the learner by allowing a very real, tangible, tactile connection between the present and the past. By allowing the learner to experience first hand the sights and sounds of the past, they -- in theory -- are more accepting of the information and the information is exponetially more meaningful to the learn. Reenacting or Living History -- is ultimately an extention of this educational concept.
As to reenacting "glorifying or glamorizing" the act of war I would say this. First -- whether reenacting glorifies war or not is a functions of interpretation -- not intent. While I can't speak for every reenactor in the world -- none of the few 100 reenactors I know personally would ever say they think war is cool, fun, neat or a really great thing for humans to engage in. Some may say it's a necessary tool of dealing with world events -- but no one I know would ever say they are reenacting because they want to endoctrinate how great and fun war is. If anything -- the purpose is to demostrate -- in as realistic yet practical way as possible - how fun war is NOT. That war is NOT a game, that people do and DID die. It is the addition of a real human being in a real uniform that helps make this point - as opposed to reading or listenting to how terrible war is.
That said -- I will agree -- there are people out there who think Reenacting is like playing a video game -- or perhaps more accurately playing paint ball or lazer tag. By and large however -- most people interested in that sort of thing find the focus on historical knowledge and accuracy involved in reenacting to be counter to their interests and quickly leave the hobby.
Secondly -- obviously we can't actually kill people to demostrate how horrible war is to people. We can "pretend" to kill people and the hope is -- it will be understood that even though people aren't actually getting hurt or maimed and that our theatrical skills may be lacking -- the point is that people die because of war. In otherwords the "sanitization" of a reenactment is due to practicallity not an attempt to make it look nicer than it really is, so people will LIKE war.
The Reenacting organization I belong to - and others like it - focus on one thing that I think is crucial to understand -- and may not be as well executed as it should -- we reenact to portray an individual person's experience - a real, everyday person's experience in an extra-ordinary situation -- and in the case of WWII - a highly unique situation which has not existed before or since in history. The idea being not to talk about being in the military or in a war - but what a person - any person - experienced as a result of being thrust into this extreme situation - most often beyond his/her will. This to me is the essence of why I do this. So little is known now by younger generations of what happend or why this war happened - it is the personal connection that can be made with a learner through reenacting that most effectively can teach the significance of the event (in this case WWII) and help that person to relate an otherwise inoccuous historical event to his/her own life and time.
So -- that's my theoretically comment. Now for some more practical reasons.
There were two comments made earlier that struck me -- one -- that much of the educational value of reenacting is experienced more by the reenactor than the public and the other a comment related to the "fear" that war causes being a factor in a reenactment, and that without this, reenacting is sort of meaniless and serves to glorify rather than warn.
I won't belabor either point other than to offer these two experiences:
During one battle reenactment, I was following a squad of GI reenactors, as a photographer -- "armed" only with a pistol and my camera. We were to patrol a section of road until a larger unit arrived. There were about 8 of us.
As we were walking down the road, a scout came running from the corner in front of us shouting "Hetzer! Hetzer!". A Hetzer is a very "small" German Tank. Small -- but still 8 men were no match against this vehicle of destruction. Moreover, there was nowhere to hide, except for a shallow ditch and hope that our uniforms blended in with the ground.
We all lay in the ditch, making ourselves as low as possible. We heard and felt the tank before we ever saw it. The clanking and creaking of the tracks and roar of the engine was nearly deafening. And the entire ground vibrated. And this was ONE tank. A SMALL one at that. I was terrified. There was absolutely NOTHING I could do to protect myself from this tank. I couldn't shoot it or run from it, I just had to hope it didn't see me or worse -- run over me. I knew that obviously nothing could happen to me. The tank posed no "real" threat to me whatsoever -- but -- it was the sound of that tank and the sensation of the whole ground quaking and the smell of the exhaust that made it all come home to me. 60 years ago - some man or woman or child felt this exact same sensation -- only "their" tank had real ammunition in it.
No other experience could have ever taught me what that feeling was like. While only a fraction of what it must have felt like - I now have some tiny idea of how horrible of an experience that must have been.
Similarly - I had the fortune of participating in a Pearl Harbor Reenactment for the opening of the Pacific Theater Wing of the National D-Day museum. We were situated on a beach of lake Ponchatrain in New Orleans. Reenactors portarying soldiers, marines and sailors were scattered around the beach -- some on sentry duty, some "sleeping", some playing a game of baseball.
The "Tora, Tora, Tora" squadron of the CAF was going to be "pretending" to attack us at some point in the next 5 mins. I was walking around the beach taking photos. The airport where the reenactment planes were taking off from was only a few miles from the beach. As I was wandering around on the beach - I heard the planes take off and slowly make their way around the north side of the lake to come at us from the west. I knew these were "jap" planes and that in a few minutes they were going to attack us. I also new that, even though in a few minutes there were going to be explosions and blanks going off, there were no real bullets or bombs or shrapnal to worry about -- but again -- I thought for just a second -- 60 years ago -- some guy on a beach in Oahu probably could hear the exact same planes coming in long before they ever got there. The difference was -- A) - he didn't know they were coming to shoot at him and B) -- "they" had real bullets and real bombs.
I wanted to run and hide as soon as I heard the planes. The guy 60 years ago never had any reason to hide until it was too late.
If I had not participated in this event -- I never would have made this tactile connection with some unknown person 60 years ago.
Later that day, there was a story of the reenactment on the TV news -- they interviewed a man who was on a ship attacked and sunk at pearl harbor. He had come to the reenactment with this son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. Tears were in the eyes of his entire family and he was holding them back himself -- he said to the reporter: Until today, I have not spoken a single word of what happened to me that day. Now -- today for the first time in 60 years -- because of watching this reenactment -- my family and I have the common ground I was missing to be able to even START to explain how horrible of an experience it was to be there that day. Now, finally, I can talk about it -- with the confindence that in some minute way -- my family has some idea what I went through.
These are the more extreme cases that I have experienced myself -- but I have had many, many of them in the last 6 years and I'm sure every reenactor out there has had many of the same as well.
If I can help just one vet be able to share his experience with his family, just one kid have a better understanding of what his grandfather went through when he was just 18 years old...I think that is a very valuable function. I do believe it makes us better as people and less likely to repeat the horrors of our past and to respect what we have in our lives right now.
That to me - is how reenacting as education is supposed to work. It is why I feel so stongly about the need to recreate an experience which, on the surface may seem like the glorification of a horrible act - but which in fact (of done right and presented in the right context) is quite the opposite.
First of all,
I'd like to say this, for the most part, has been a very mature discussion with insightful comments on bothsides of the issue and I commend everyone for such a "healthy" debate. I'm not sure what this means -- but I fear were this conversation on on of the Reenactor Boards it would not have remained nearly as civil or mature.
I'd like to offer my theory on reenacting and some thoughts.
I am a WWII reenactor and have been since 1999. I portray a U. S. military combat photographer. I am also by nature - a pacifist, I generally consider myself "liberal" about most social issues and find war a horrible and despicable aspect of human society and a very sad fact of our collective history. This is partly why I am a reenactor.
Reenacting as "eduction" functions through something called "First Person" interpretation -- something used by museums, parks and various other "professional" historic places to engage the learner by allowing a very real, tangible, tactile connection between the present and the past. By allowing the learner to experience first hand the sights and sounds of the past, they -- in theory -- are more accepting of the information and the information is exponetially more meaningful to the learn. Reenacting or Living History -- is ultimately an extention of this educational concept.
As to reenacting "glorifying or glamorizing" the act of war I would say this. First -- whether reenacting glorifies war or not is a functions of interpretation -- not intent. While I can't speak for every reenactor in the world -- none of the few 100 reenactors I know personally would ever say they think war is cool, fun, neat or a really great thing for humans to engage in. Some may say it's a necessary tool of dealing with world events -- but no one I know would ever say they are reenacting because they want to endoctrinate how great and fun war is. If anything -- the purpose is to demostrate -- in as realistic yet practical way as possible - how fun war is NOT. That war is NOT a game, that people do and DID die. It is the addition of a real human being in a real uniform that helps make this point - as opposed to reading or listenting to how terrible war is.
That said -- I will agree -- there are people out there who think Reenacting is like playing a video game -- or perhaps more accurately playing paint ball or lazer tag. By and large however -- most people interested in that sort of thing find the focus on historical knowledge and accuracy involved in reenacting to be counter to their interests and quickly leave the hobby.
Secondly -- obviously we can't actually kill people to demostrate how horrible war is to people. We can "pretend" to kill people and the hope is -- it will be understood that even though people aren't actually getting hurt or maimed and that our theatrical skills may be lacking -- the point is that people die because of war. In otherwords the "sanitization" of a reenactment is due to practicallity not an attempt to make it look nicer than it really is, so people will LIKE war.
The Reenacting organization I belong to - and others like it - focus on one thing that I think is crucial to understand -- and may not be as well executed as it should -- we reenact to portray an individual person's experience - a real, everyday person's experience in an extra-ordinary situation -- and in the case of WWII - a highly unique situation which has not existed before or since in history. The idea being not to talk about being in the military or in a war - but what a person - any person - experienced as a result of being thrust into this extreme situation - most often beyond his/her will. This to me is the essence of why I do this. So little is known now by younger generations of what happend or why this war happened - it is the personal connection that can be made with a learner through reenacting that most effectively can teach the significance of the event (in this case WWII) and help that person to relate an otherwise inoccuous historical event to his/her own life and time.
So -- that's my theoretically comment. Now for some more practical reasons.
There were two comments made earlier that struck me -- one -- that much of the educational value of reenacting is experienced more by the reenactor than the public and the other a comment related to the "fear" that war causes being a factor in a reenactment, and that without this, reenacting is sort of meaniless and serves to glorify rather than warn.
I won't belabor either point other than to offer these two experiences:
During one battle reenactment, I was following a squad of GI reenactors, as a photographer -- "armed" only with a pistol and my camera. We were to patrol a section of road until a larger unit arrived. There were about 8 of us.
As we were walking down the road, a scout came running from the corner in front of us shouting "Hetzer! Hetzer!". A Hetzer is a very "small" German Tank. Small -- but still 8 men were no match against this vehicle of destruction. Moreover, there was nowhere to hide, except for a shallow ditch and hope that our uniforms blended in with the ground.
We all lay in the ditch, making ourselves as low as possible. We heard and felt the tank before we ever saw it. The clanking and creaking of the tracks and roar of the engine was nearly deafening. And the entire ground vibrated. And this was ONE tank. A SMALL one at that. I was terrified. There was absolutely NOTHING I could do to protect myself from this tank. I couldn't shoot it or run from it, I just had to hope it didn't see me or worse -- run over me. I knew that obviously nothing could happen to me. The tank posed no "real" threat to me whatsoever -- but -- it was the sound of that tank and the sensation of the whole ground quaking and the smell of the exhaust that made it all come home to me. 60 years ago - some man or woman or child felt this exact same sensation -- only "their" tank had real ammunition in it.
No other experience could have ever taught me what that feeling was like. While only a fraction of what it must have felt like - I now have some tiny idea of how horrible of an experience that must have been.
Similarly - I had the fortune of participating in a Pearl Harbor Reenactment for the opening of the Pacific Theater Wing of the National D-Day museum. We were situated on a beach of lake Ponchatrain in New Orleans. Reenactors portarying soldiers, marines and sailors were scattered around the beach -- some on sentry duty, some "sleeping", some playing a game of baseball.
The "Tora, Tora, Tora" squadron of the CAF was going to be "pretending" to attack us at some point in the next 5 mins. I was walking around the beach taking photos. The airport where the reenactment planes were taking off from was only a few miles from the beach. As I was wandering around on the beach - I heard the planes take off and slowly make their way around the north side of the lake to come at us from the west. I knew these were "jap" planes and that in a few minutes they were going to attack us. I also new that, even though in a few minutes there were going to be explosions and blanks going off, there were no real bullets or bombs or shrapnal to worry about -- but again -- I thought for just a second -- 60 years ago -- some guy on a beach in Oahu probably could hear the exact same planes coming in long before they ever got there. The difference was -- A) - he didn't know they were coming to shoot at him and B) -- "they" had real bullets and real bombs.
I wanted to run and hide as soon as I heard the planes. The guy 60 years ago never had any reason to hide until it was too late.
If I had not participated in this event -- I never would have made this tactile connection with some unknown person 60 years ago.
Later that day, there was a story of the reenactment on the TV news -- they interviewed a man who was on a ship attacked and sunk at pearl harbor. He had come to the reenactment with this son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. Tears were in the eyes of his entire family and he was holding them back himself -- he said to the reporter: Until today, I have not spoken a single word of what happened to me that day. Now -- today for the first time in 60 years -- because of watching this reenactment -- my family and I have the common ground I was missing to be able to even START to explain how horrible of an experience it was to be there that day. Now, finally, I can talk about it -- with the confindence that in some minute way -- my family has some idea what I went through.
These are the more extreme cases that I have experienced myself -- but I have had many, many of them in the last 6 years and I'm sure every reenactor out there has had many of the same as well.
If I can help just one vet be able to share his experience with his family, just one kid have a better understanding of what his grandfather went through when he was just 18 years old...I think that is a very valuable function. I do believe it makes us better as people and less likely to repeat the horrors of our past and to respect what we have in our lives right now.
That to me - is how reenacting as education is supposed to work. It is why I feel so stongly about the need to recreate an experience which, on the surface may seem like the glorification of a horrible act - but which in fact (of done right and presented in the right context) is quite the opposite.
Gray Ghost
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 498
cneil said:
Stop that! You are making me have flash backs. Just kidding. I used to be a Confederate Reenactor. I was with the 1st NC Volunteers / 11th Regiment NC Troops. I did that for 18 years. I am now doing WWII and portray USAAF. I have my own unit. It is the 13th Air Force Living History Detachment and It is in honor of my father who actually served in the 13th Air Force in the South Pacific. He was in HQ Squadron, XIII Fighter Command. My unit is a working unit. We are able to provide Security, communications, transportation, and medical. My aidmen are certified EMTs and my Security or MPs are actually certified law enforcement. We have several jeeps and a 1944 Dodge Ambulance. I do this hobby to honor the vets such as my father. I know that it is not exactly like the real thing but the vets all seem to enjoy it. As far as it not being real, sometimes unfortunately, it gets real. An aquaintance of mine was killed flying his F-4U Corsair. I believe he had engine problems and instead of bailing to save himself he dived into the swamp to keep from killing others. The airport was in a heavy residental area. His family was taking a flight in a B-25 and he was the escort. They did not see it happen and had no idea untill they landed what had happened. We are unable to have air shows at that location anymore. That was in Columbia, SC. We now go to Camden to another old Army Air Field. No matter how safe you are, accidents can always happen. When I was doing Civil War Reenactments, I was hit in the chest with the muzzle of a rifle and had my chest bone broken. In CW, a touch of the rifle counts as a bayonet thrust. The Yank was just a little over zealous when he took me out. I can still feel when the weather changes and that was 15 years ago. I don't just portray war living history, but I also do Mountainman and life in the backwoods and on rivers. Don't forget, most movies that we enjoy about WWII, WWI, CW and other time periods, that are accurate, are only able to be done by having reenactors or living historians actually taking part in the movies and wearing their authentic uniforms, vehicles and weapons.:cheers1:
MrBern
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,469
Actually, its not a crappy show at all. I was just sorry to see that the plot device of the life endangering explosive was a slam against reenactors.Baron Kurtz said:
For that matter, a few years ago, one of the ProjectGreenlight movie's was about teenage angst & the teen was a paratrooper reenactor. The character was interesting, BUT some of the depiction of what goes on at reenactments was REDICULOUS. But his interest in reenacting was clear. That movie was BATTLE of SHAKER HEIGHTS.
zeus36
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 392
- Location
- Ventura, California
On a lighter note:
I was with the California Gunfighters group for awhile back in the mid-90s, where I dressed as Wyatt Erp or Wild Bill. I liked the Victorian clothes so much that it drew me into vintage wear and the Fedora Lounge!
I was with the California Gunfighters group for awhile back in the mid-90s, where I dressed as Wyatt Erp or Wild Bill. I liked the Victorian clothes so much that it drew me into vintage wear and the Fedora Lounge!
MrBern
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,469
re-enactment might be history
http://washtimes.com/upi/20060314-020326-2375r.htm
Selma battle re-enactment may be history
Mar. 14, 2006 at 2:27PM
The re-enactment of Alabama's Civil War Battle of Selma could be joining the original in history.
The sponsors withdrew support from this year's battle because the number of volunteers and re-enactors has been falling while fuel prices are rising, the Montgomery Advertiser reports.
One Selma leader thinks the time may have come to let the battle go.
"The younger generation hasn't had their granddaddies talk to them about the war and their family's involvement way back at that time," said George "Cap" Swift. "I think most of our people are more concerned with the war we're in now instead of the war that once was."
State Tourism Director Lee Sentell, on the other hand, hopes that the re-enactment can be revived because 2011 is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and could spark new interest.
The battle took place in April 1865. Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, facing a superior Union force under Major Gen. James H. Wilson, attempted to defend the arsenal at Selma. While Forrest was defeated, Wilson's victory was an expensive one, and many Confederates, including Forrest, escaped.
http://washtimes.com/upi/20060314-020326-2375r.htm
Selma battle re-enactment may be history
Mar. 14, 2006 at 2:27PM
The re-enactment of Alabama's Civil War Battle of Selma could be joining the original in history.
The sponsors withdrew support from this year's battle because the number of volunteers and re-enactors has been falling while fuel prices are rising, the Montgomery Advertiser reports.
One Selma leader thinks the time may have come to let the battle go.
"The younger generation hasn't had their granddaddies talk to them about the war and their family's involvement way back at that time," said George "Cap" Swift. "I think most of our people are more concerned with the war we're in now instead of the war that once was."
State Tourism Director Lee Sentell, on the other hand, hopes that the re-enactment can be revived because 2011 is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and could spark new interest.
The battle took place in April 1865. Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, facing a superior Union force under Major Gen. James H. Wilson, attempted to defend the arsenal at Selma. While Forrest was defeated, Wilson's victory was an expensive one, and many Confederates, including Forrest, escaped.
- Status
Similar threads
