Another Way to Describe Events

For some time I’ve had problems with words like “mainstream,” “progressive,” “campaign,” and the like – even more with “hard core” and “farb.”  For one thing, although we have a rough idea of what they mean, there’s enough uncertainty to leave plenty of room for argument.  For another, because of the implied value judgments (e.g., “progressive” = good; “mainstream” = bad; “campaigners” eat their young and there are no “farbs”, at least if you ask them), arguments seem almost certain.  

I’d like to propose that we instead describe events by their primary intent, without any implied value judgment.  To that end, I suggest the following three categories.  Because every event will to some degree fulfill needs in the other two categories, these shouldn’t be seen as exclusive.  To give some idea of how the descrïptions would apply in real life, I’ll then apply them to four events I’ve attended in the last year.  

Reenactments Classified by Purpose

Recreation:  

This probably covers the majority of events.  The main purpose is to enjoy an outdoor activity with a historic theme, involving interesting equipment, clothing, and firearms.  A strong family component is frequently present.  Safety standards are important because neither injuries nor lawsuits are fun.  Some baseline authenticity standards are necessary because, while a skirmish with Annie Oakley or Imperial Stormtroopers might be entertaining, it’s not appropriate to the civil war.  After hours entertainment involving music and alcohol are acceptable; an ability to laugh at oneself and not take life too seriously is essential.  Examples include most well publicized annual reenactments with several hundreds, or thousands of participants and like numbers of spectators, as well as many smaller events sponsored by local communities.

Simulation:  

These are rarer events involving fewer people.  The main purpose is to give the participant the sense of actually being present in history.  Ideally it takes place in a secluded location with minimal, if any, modern intrusions.  There is a high standard of material culture to ensure that items used are, as far as possible, indistinguishable from those made in the 19th century.  “First person” behavior is usually encouraged if not mandated.  Safe behavior is expected of the sort of person who would attend this event, but is generally not prescribed in detail.  Activities extend beyond battle reenactments or public demonstrations to include guard mount, picket duty, marches, interactions with civilians, even period paperwork.  Rations are issued.  You’re in the army from the time the event goes “live” till it ends.  There is no down time.  Examples are largely known only to those who’ve gone.  There are very few if any spectators, or they are only present for a small portion of the event.

Education:

While the event may have strong recreation or simulation components, the main goal is to learn something new about the civil war whether it be the conduct of a march, the experience of a winter encampment or picket post, or interactions with civilians.  Given these goals, material standards and scheduling will be tighter than a recreation event, because the purpose is to learn something, not just have fun.  On the other hand the standards may be looser than a simulation event because individual “magic moments” are less important than improved skills and new insights.  Examples include some structured tacticals, camps of instruction, specialist schools, and living histories.

Four Examples From the Last Year

All of the events described below are ones that I both attended and enjoyed.  The ratings are mine; others’ mileage may differ.

Neshaminy

A combination battle reenactment and tactical held at Ben-Salem State Park outside Philadelphia in April 2008.

Recreation – High:  Neshaminy almost defines this category.  Nice people, fun scrïpted battles, good play time in the tacticals, friendly gatherings around the campfires at night.

Simulation – Low:  Between the family camps, playground equipment, traffic on nearby roadways and river, and sutlers and spectators, the odds of losing oneself in the 19th century are pretty small.  But that’s not why you’d come here anyway.

Education – Medium/Low:  I’m biased.  This year I got to help the Confederate commander, Bill Rodman, set up camp and run his army so I learned a bit about the challenges in staging this kind of reenactment.  But these kinds of events also give the participating units the chance to work on their drill and maneuvering skill and that has a value all its own.

Winter ‘64

A recreation of the winter encampment of the 151st NYSV at Brandy Station in 1864, the event was held over four days in February 2008 in Newfane, New York.

Recreation – Low:  I’m pretty sure everyone treasured the experience, but spending four days in log huts with period “sinks,” leaving only for picket duty or a foraging party probably would not meet any conventional definition of “recreation.”

Simulation – High, with minor qualifications:  Attendees were in the army and generally stayed in first person for all four days.  Modern housing and roadways could be seen from the site and en route to and from off-site activities, though the impact this had on anyone’s immersion in the 19th century probably varied from person to person.    

Education – High, with qualifications:  As I recall, the ostensible purpose of expanding the event to four days was to enhance the experience of a winter encampment.  Whether that enhances “simulation” or “experiential archaeology” probably depends on the individual.  Most participants probably didn’t learn too much in the way of new skills, though being out for, effectively, three times the length of a normal reenactment is educational in itself.  As battalion clerk, I learned a great deal simply preparing the necessary materials for the event.  I also encountered several new practical problems in field paperwork.

September Storm

A series of battle reenactments portraying encounters at South Mountain and Antietam, held over the course of a weekend in Boonsboro, Maryland in September 2007.

Recreation – High, with qualifications:  A major tenet of the “Anders-Air” events is that different kinds of reenactors can be brought together and, with clear rules, higher authenticity standards, and tight scrïpts, have as much fun as they might at more conventional recreation events.  From appearances, this happened at September Storm.  However, it involves compromises from all concerned, mainly in rubbing shoulders with reenactors with different approaches and tastes.

Simulation – Medium:  This kind of hybrid event, with a sutler row and nearby “camps of convenience” precludes the immersive experience that is the focus of simulation events.  That said, “campaign camps” allow some simulation outside of the battles, and the battles themselves, with reduced spectators, careful use of terrain, and detailed scrïpts based on specific unit movements during the historical encounters, all provide an experience much above the average at similarly sized (much less larger) events.

Education – Medium:  I’m biased because I served as AAG to the Federal commander and it was quite an education for me, though more in the area of event support than 19th century administration.  Beyond that, many primarily recreation reenactors get introduced to aspects of simulation at these events, and the strict application of scrïpts requires commanders and troops to stretch themselves in the area of drill and maneuver well beyond the demands of most reenactments.

I’m tempted to give other examples of events I thoroughly enjoyed. Jari Villanueva’s Field Music School was a great education event; Doug Dobbs’ Sixth Corps March was, well sui generis.  But the above should serve as pretty good examples of how to apply this concept to a diverse set of events.

Mike,

I'd add one category. Events that are designed specifically to educate/entertain spectators. Events like Quiet Valley, the NPS Living Histories, and the 4th. Texas at the Gruber Wagon Works come quickly to mind.

  Hallo!

 I think I like it....    

 But yes,  "Public Education" should/would be a category.

 Curt
 With Shades of Gray, Only Black and White Mess

It doesn't matter what's on the lable. It's what's inside the package that ultimatly makes you happy.

Hmm...sounds like a hobby revolution.  Sort of reminds me of the "Reenactors Congress".  Anyone remember that?  It led to the indirect birth of this forum   .

"Public Education" is problematic since it can be carried out by reenactors with differing hobby goals, and maybe that's one place where my proposal breaks down.  

Saturday I plan to go to a "living history" in Vienna, Virginia that will have several folks presenting to the public with different levels of commitment to authenticity.  It's a "public education" event, but they will get a very different picture of the war from the reenactors whose interest is primarily recreation than they will from the ones more heavily into simulation.

Grumpy, you have a good point, or at least I think it's good because I tend to agree with it.  But as long as people must have labels, I would rather they be as objective as we can make them.  Too many kids think they can be "hard core" by denouncing "farbs" while skipping the homework, and too many "family friendly" folks justify their caravanserais by thinking anyone who objects must be a satanic "campaigner."

Besides, I like both Velveeta and Feta, but I don't want to wait till I've opened the package to find out whether I've picked the right one for my salad or sandwich.

 Hallo!

 "It doesn't matter what's on the lable. It's what's inside the package that ultimatly makes you happy."

  Without being negative, but offering up both sides of that Real Life coin, I would say...  

  It doesn't matter what's on the label. It's what's inside the package that ultimatly makes you happy or unhappy.

  And for me, IMHO, when the label says filet mignon and I open the package to find rotten fish fillets, I am not always "happy."  But, if the label says "rotten fish fillets," I am not unhappy for the contents match the label.      

  Curt
  Heretic Mess
  Proud Member of the "Don't P**S Down My Back, and Tell Me It's Raining Rifles"
 
 

While I'm not saying the original post in this thread is a word for word quote from a CCG article from about 8-10 years ago, it sure is close in many respects.

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote : It doesn't matter what's on the label. It's what's inside the package that ultimatly makes you happy or unhappy. And for me, IMHO, when the label says filet mignon and I open the package to find rotten fish fillets, I am not always "happy."

Precisely. If I'm going to buy into something then I want it to be what I purchased.  

About a year ago I purchased some pork tenderloin and when I opened the package it reeked.  I took it back to the store and complained until I got my money back. Yep, if I don't get what's promised, don't expect accolades of praise.  

Though recently I purchased some more and it's the best stuff since time began. I can think of events that fit both pieces of meat.

Linda.

 

Linda,

Truth in advertising has been the bane of the hobby for a long, long, time, and an issue that ranges from F to H and everything in between. Even with event shorthand, gaps exist between a C for some and a P for others, and an event without canvas may be H to some.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote :Truth in advertising has been the bane of the hobby for a long, long, time, and an issue that ranges from F to H and everything in between. Even with event shorthand, gaps exist between a C for some and a P for others, and an event without canvas may be H to some.

Exactly right, Charles.  What is one thing to one reenactor can be an entirely different thing to another, and I don't see any way to standardize it.

We'll continue to use whatever labels we choose, as we have no other choice.  The best we can do is to be as specific as possible in the details of the discrïptions, and hope for the best.  Even then, some will see things differently than one intended.

Bernie

That's right. People can invent new classificatios every hour, on the hour, if the wish.  Considerning of the six in generally  consistent and widespread use:

One is from the CW itself.
Two are from the centennial era.
One is from 1986.
Two date from 1996.

Not bad.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : While I'm not saying the original post in this thread is a word for word quote from a CCG article from about 8-10 years ago, it sure is close in many respects.

Charles, thank you for the relevant, though somewhat vague, reference to reenacting history.  I find it encouraging and dismaying at the same time.

It’s encouraging because the article you cite predates my entry into the hobby by a few years.  That means that the desire to employ accurate but non-demeaning labels isn’t peculiar to me, but can crop up independently in different generations of reenactors like a recessive gene.

But it’s dismaying because it does seem to be a recessive gene.  That implies that for many people the role of labels goes beyond truth in advertising to serve the further purpose of distinguishing “us” from “them” in a way that demeans “them.”  It is I believe at this point that reenacting descends from a focus on history to the tribalism of boys in different tree forts, one without a roof and the other filled with cots and coolers, but alike in making up little club rules about who can or can’t climb up the ladder.

Not that it doesn’t happen in other pursuits.  Toy soldier aficionados split into camps of collector’s figures and wargame armies; formalist poets despise free verse confessionalists; and I’m sure bird watchers have different subgroups devoted to raptors and warblers.  But they tend not to break groups up along those lines and “fence-sitting” is broadly encouraged rather than disdained.

As I said earlier, the divisions in reenacting have bothered me a bit for some time, but after my experience on the Sixth Corps march they strike me as especially ridiculous, and even hypocritical.  

One of the most popular fora in the hobby – one that styles itself as a beacon of historicity, with an emphasis on marching and camping, and some of whose regulars delight in scourging neophytes for various minor sins in clothing and equipage – had virtually no mention of either that march or the shorter (yet nonetheless quite grueling) Tackitt march.  And each march only attracted about ten participants.

Now I don’t think any one event or series of events should serve as a litmus test for whatever category an individual hobbyist wants to claim for him- or herself, but it does seem to me that more people assert membership in the upper reaches of the “f***” to “p/c/h” spectrum than actual experience would warrant.  To me that’s another sign that that particular hierarchy is worse than meaningless.  

What I’ve proposed has its own faults, but at least groundless condescension isn’t among them.

Quote :

Michael Schaffner wrote :   One of the most popular fora in the hobby – one that styles itself as a beacon of historicity, with an emphasis on marching and camping, and some of whose regulars delight in scourging neophytes for various minor sins in clothing and equipage – had virtually no mention of either that march or the shorter (yet nonetheless quite grueling) Tackitt march.  And each march only attracted about ten participants.

Out of curiosity, how would you categorize the Sixth Corps march, in the new classifications? Based on AARs and pre-event announcements, I'd rank it very high on recreation, next highest on education, and very low on simulation. I'm betting that's not what you're picturing, but I dunno.

On the c/p/h scale, I'd rank it as c.

What do others think? I could explain my reasoning, based on the descrïptions of the new definitions, but I'll wait until others have answered.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I'd rate it low on recreation due to the effects of concrete walkways on brogans and the after effects of chafing.

Seriously, I got to the point where I found fifteen mile practice marches in cold weather to be kind of fun, and even twenty milers to be sort of bracing, but those distances in the heat and humidity just beat hell out of me.

Simulation would be a medium, with a very high rating attained by the experience of marching balanced by the event's modern surroundings and the fact that none of us gave a rat's a$$ about the number of rivets in our scabbards.  

Education would be high, because you can't learn what a march like that is like without trying to do it.  Several of us had prepared for a year, but the actual experience turned out quite beyond what we expected.

But I suspect that if Doug wanted to rate it he would have invented a new category, Commemoration.

While the proposed ratings can be as subjective as any others, reducing the implied value judgments makes it a bit easier to discuss and debate, rather than argue, the application.

But your question also makes me wonder about the other approach to classification as applied to the events of the past year.  Like, where would "Winter '64" fall?  It wasn't a 'c', but was it a 'p' or an 'h'?  Or is that why we throw the three together as c/p/h -- because they don't really signify distinct categories?  And would various posters have damned "September Storm" with faint praise by calling it "a very good mainstream event" if someone other than Chris Anders had staged it?

I suppose that last question is impossible for any of us to answer objectively.

Quote :

Michael Schaffner wrote : I'd rate it low on recreation due to the effects of concrete walkways on brogans and the after effects of chafing. Seriously, I got to the point where I found fifteen mile practice marches in cold weather to be kind of fun, and even twenty milers to be sort of bracing, but those distances in the heat and humidity just beat hell out of me.

See, that's a tough one. Because, for example, I went on a modern 40-mile backpacking walk this spring alone, and met others who were doing the same kind of thing. We all joked that other people couldn't understand why we were doing this for fun, with blisters and sore muscles and heat and cold, etc. Yet what we were doing was 100% recreation, no doubt. Um, I mean, to us, at least.

If I start with my trip this spring as 100% recreation, and then take away things that make the Sixth Corps march a simulation, I look at it this way:

The main purpose is to give the participant the sense of actually being present in history. Ideally it takes place in a secluded location with minimal, if any, modern intrusions.

For the distance, obviously, it's hard to find anyplace without major modern intrusions. However, modern roads were chosen for the education (commemoration) aspect, rather than roads that seemed like the same roads in 1863. There was no premise to explain the small numbers, such as we're stragglers and we're pretending the real Sixth Corps is right around the bend, because why would the flag bearer hold onto the flag while straggling?

There is a high standard of material culture to ensure that items used are, as far as possible, indistinguishable from those made in the 19th century.

That's what would make me rate it highest on the simulation scale. This spring, my material culture was of course totally modern.

“First person” behavior is usually encouraged if not mandated.
Never saw it mentioned as part of the Sixth Corps march plans.

Safe behavior is expected of the sort of person who would attend this event, but is generally not prescribed in detail.  Activities extend beyond battle reenactments or public demonstrations to include guard mount, picket duty, marches, interactions with civilians, even period paperwork.  Rations are issued.

Well, a lot of that doesn't really apply one way or the other, due to the uniqueness of the event.

You’re in the army from the time the event goes “live” till it ends.  There is no down time.

I'm not sure how to interpret that. If it's only accomplishing the assigned tasks, well, the task was covering the distance, so it would be a simulation there. And yet, ironically, my modern hike this spring would also be a simulation in that regard.

If it's portraying a soldier in the army, I didn't get the impression that the march was about portraying a soldier when not marching or even while marching, except for literally marching. In other words, it would be just as acceptable to take care of thoughts about one's family by calling one's wife in the evening and say, "Honey, we're at Smithville tonight and things are going well," as to write a period letter to one's wife back in New Jersey about 1863 life in the army. But I dunno.

Examples are largely known only to those who’ve gone.  There are very few if any spectators, or they are only present for a small portion of the event

That applies, in the sense it wasn't designed for the ease of spectators.

Quote :

But I suspect that if Doug wanted to rate it he would have invented a new category, Commemoration.

Funny that I actually took out a comment in my previous post, using that very word. That seemed to fit exactly, to define the category of parades, laying wreaths, conducting memorial services, and so forth. If I'm understanding correctly, the march wasn't about pretending to be a 6th Corps soldier, it was more like the people who walk coast to coast to raise awareness for cancer, or whatever, in memory of a loved one who died from it. For lack of a better category, I counted that as "education," which is why I scored education much higher than simulation.

Quote :

While the proposed ratings can be as subjective as any others, reducing the implied value judgments makes it a bit easier to discuss and debate, rather than argue, the application.

Just curious. If I said that the Sixth Corps march didn't interest me because it seemed to be too high on recreation and too low on simulation, while another similar event was higher in simulation and thus of more interest, would that be completely free of value judgment? (Leaving out the third category, for a moment.) Would there be a tiny bit of desire to be defensive and say, no, this isn't just an outdoor activity with a historic theme, it's really about giving the participant the sense of actually being present in history? Is scoring higher on the simulation scale "better" than scoring higher on the "recreation" scale?

I'm wondering if the value judgments are deeper than the labels.

Quote :

But your question also makes me wonder about the other approach to classification as applied to the events of the past year.  Like, where would "Winter '64" fall?  It wasn't a 'c', but was it a 'p' or an 'h'?

Obviously not a 'c.' I'd call it a 'p' but wouldn't argue if someone wanted to convince me it was an 'h.' Kinda like some teachers say they never give A+ because no work is perfect, while others give A+ for something that's in the top few percentage points of what most kids are handing in. I'm the type for always leaving that top level open for theoretical perfection, but that's just me.

Quote :

And would various posters have damned "September Storm" with faint praise by calling it "a very good mainstream event" if someone other than Chris Anders had staged it?

Well, I like Chris Anders, and he put on October 62 also, so he knows the difference between a September Storm type of event and an October 62 type of event, and I'd guess that even he would be proud to hear September Storm called a very good mainstream event. But I don't mean to speak for him, of course, and we could ask him.

I can't see that an event with scheduled battles, camps of convenience, and no straight-line movement could fit in either c, p, or h, while I'd put October 62 in whatever category Winter 64 was in, either p or h. Or possibly c, since the soldiers were "on campaign," and were expected to carry everything and camp where ordered in a different place, but the movement was more random or circular, maneuvering around the enemy, than linear.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

edited to fix the multilingual quote tags  

--Last edited by hanktrent on 2008-07-28 17:44:44 --

About the recreation aspect, we joke a lot at reenactments about how others would view us as crazy for liking this, but on this march no one was joking after the first four hours.  I think the office park pavement in Herndon beat it out of us.  Plus, everyone knew it was going to be a challenge before that, so no one chose it for recreation.

For simulation, as I said, there were pros and cons with the event overall coming out in the middle -- most factors would work against simulation, but walking 8-10 hours a day and sleeping under its after-effects tended to compensate for, e.g., incorrect canteen straps.  Our material culture varied wildly, with a liberal sprinkling of sutler row clothing and equipment. Not that anyone cared.  First person wasn't part of the plan, but quite a bit happened as a side effect of walking all day.  Another thing that wasn't planned, but was a side effect of the essence of the event, was a generally younger, slimmer demographic than you'd see at most simulation events.

Modern roads were chosen because they were, so far as Doug knew, the actual roads the Sixth Corps took.  If anyone could have found a hundred miles of roads that reasonably simulated those in 1863, I think he would have considered them.  I'm not sure what the size of group symbolized.  My personal impression was that of a straggler, though not intentionally

Chosing an event because it's higher on simulation than recreation could be seen as an implied value judgment, but I think it gets more into the area of personal taste. I would not disagree that value judgments run deeper than the labels; the question is whether you want labels that encourage those value judgments rather than ones that primarily aim at descrïption.

My question about Winter '64 was mainly rhetorical.  I think 'h' is an absurd classification, historically meaningless.  One could be absolutely authentic as a hospital rat or shirker.  

I'm pretty sure Chris wasn't terrifically keen on having his events labeled "mainstream" rather than "progressive."  I think he felt, with good reason, that an event that provided room for "campaigners" to do their thing and forced "mainstreamers" to stretch had a solid claim on the 'p' label.  I think he's reconciled to having lost that battle on a couple of fora, but there are probably many more reenactors who view his events as "progressive" than there are holding the other view.

For myself, I'm looking into trying to set up one or two weekend long 30-40 mile marching events in the next year or so, but whether they're primarily recreational or not will depend on the season.

Michael,

The Sixth Corps march falls neatly into the campaign event category. Distance and fieldcraft trump gear at that point, as you've no doubt read a few hundred times. The irony for many people is the largest campaign event ever held had roughly 1,200 participants, and they were mostly mainstreamers and authenticists at the start of the event, with a smattering of genuine farbs, but by the end of the trek, they were making jokes about burning their regular tentage, and they learned a lot about the "3S" system.

Like you, I'm surprised no one bothered to make mention of it on the AC Forum either before, during, or after the event. The Sixth Corps march may have encouraged a few conversations relating to the "significant movement" requirement, as the campaigners have been satisfied in recent years with the "battlefield stroll" generally associated with mobile living histories, for the most part.

Personally, I like walking, and enjoy primitive camping, so campaign events hold a certain charm for me, and it is pretty obvious campaigner adjuncts to mainstream events are still popular in some circles. The rekindling of interest in campaigning in 2008 is encouraging, and I hope it carries over to 2009 and beyond. This is a good thing.

From an insider's point of view, W64 is all over the place, but it is one of those rare events where farbs, mainstreamers, authenticists, campaigners, progressives, and hardcores co-exist with a somewhat unified purpose. Is it a hardcore event? Some participants claim the last three were, but the majority of the organizers would peg them as progressive events. The members of the 151st NYVI really pour themselves into W64, and deserve far more thanks than they'll ever get.

...and if you've ever taken the time to read the definition of hardcore, then you'll realize it is definitely tongue in cheek. There is a good reason for that, too.

Quote :

Michael Schaffner wrote : Plus, everyone knew it was going to be a challenge before that, so no one chose it for recreation.

But, see, that's where I disagree. There are people who hike the Appalachian trail from Maine to Florida for "recreation," even though it's an incredible challenge they may not succeed at.

And there are people who do things at normal "recreational" events that would be a rough physical challenge for me. Eat that much food, drink that much alcohol, get that little amount of sleep, then go out and fight in the blazing sun the next day? I couldn't do it. Or, I should say, I wouldn't want to attempt it, certainly not for fun.

But I'd gladly attempt a 30-40 mile march with a high simulation factor, even if I wound up dropping out after 10 miles, because that would be my idea of "recreation."

Um, I think I just talked myself around in a full circle. Not sure what that means!

Quote :

My question about Winter '64 was mainly rhetorical.  I think 'h' is an absurd classification, historically meaningless.  One could be absolutely authentic as a hospital rat or shirker.

Yep, I totally agree that a shirker, old guy sitting in the rocking chair at home, or whatever, could be anything from "farb" to "hardcore," depending how it's done. I think that's why I could picture a theoretically serious category called hardcore, but why current usage doesn't really work.

If it's meant to imply self-denial in the name of history, I see people who'll do a physically difficult impression, but don't have enough self control to get by for two days without a camera, or without talking about the internet, or whatever. It's just too hard for them. Wimping out is wimping out.  

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

But if I were really being honest, I'd say I tried the Sixth Corps March so I'd have something to talk about at Cedar Creek.

I think this adds a fourth category, but I'm not sure whether to call it Bloviation or Self-Glorification.