Carolyn Brady asked if any sites feature slave characters directly
interacting (as opposed to fourth wall) with visitors. Colonial Williamsburg
(CW) does do this in several of its venues. The visitors that I witnessed
down there were initially shy about asking questions of the "slaves," but
once the ice was broken, they had many questions and were clearly interested
in the daily life of "the other half." Most of the slave characters at CW
are congenial enough, except for one, "Kate," who is somewhat hard-edged and
wary. That character, in particular, has made many visitors uncomfortable,
but the program planners have chosen to use discomfort as part of the
learning experience.
I have often believed that visitors need to feel un-threatened in order to
enjoy and be receptive to first-person interpretation, but I suspect that
"Kate" and programs such as the slave auction really do have an impact on
visitors, even if there is a certain discomfort involved. However, in my
opinion, there are certain reasons why this is so. When faced with the
presence of a slave character it is likely that many visitors will think
"well, this person is a SLAVE, so OF COURSE they have a reason to be
hostile, angry, and secretive." Unhappiness is assumed. So while the visitor
may feel uncomfortable, they may not necessarily feel threatened. On the
other hand, if visitors encounter a hostile, let's say for example, white
farmer character, they may not know the character's motives for
cantankerousness (unless they have been WELL-BRIEFED beforehand). So, there
is always the possibility that the visitors will believe the have
encountered an unpleasant or poor interpreter. A skilled first-person
interpreter, saddled with such a character, will be able to convey anger
towards neighbors, poverty, or whatever, NOT by directing hostility AT the
visitor, but by using other tactics that enable the visitor to see his/her
character's point of view--eliciting sympathy, explaining complaints, etc.
I didn't have any anxiety interacting with the slaves at CW, but do you know
what made me feel uneasy? Interacting with (solo) white interpreters who
expressed typical 18th century views about blacks when not in the context of
a scenario. Even though I KNEW what was going on and why it was being done,
I wondered if the white interpreters (that I heard) espoused similar
sentiments when black visitors were present. I wondered how black visitors
would have reacted. I wondered how real bigots would respond to hearing
their ugly views reinforced. There is not the same clear distancing of
sentiment as there is when Mystic Seaport Museum interpreters moan about the
influx of Irish or when Plimoth's Pilgrims vilify the Spanish. People laugh
because those beliefs are quaint, but bigotry against blacks is still with
us, unfortunately.
Ken Yellis made some good observations about how people interact with
various traditional media in comparison with first-person interpretation.
Sites do need to make more of an effort to help the public discover how they
can "use" interactive roleplay settings effectively. In what role does the
program place the visitor? What kind of roles should the visitors place
themselves in? Do the visitors have freedom to pick their "persona" as
historical contemporary or time traveling anthropologist? A few clues or
suggestions might go a long way for those unfamiliar with the medium.
One more thought--this one in response to Carolyn Brady's observation that
many sites have disproportionately white visitation. According to the New
York Times article on 10/11/94, the reporter mentioned that three quarters
of the observers of the slave auction were white. That also says to me that
one fourth were non-white. If that is truly the case, then CW has done an
admirable job of encouraging diverse visitation. The strength of the African
American program--and the successful marketing of it--can no doubt take most
of the credit.
Stacy
Stacy F. Roth | [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 383 | Voice: (215) 943-1232
Langhorne, PA 19047 |
|
