In a message dated 9/18/01 3:33:41 PM,
[log in to unmask] writes:

I have in the past seen events cancelled which might have an unfortunate
resonance with vistors in the period immediately after an incident.  This is
similar to TV companies cancelling scheduled showings of films.  It is
usually short term and considered part of being respectful to the victims. >>

I am a practising Civil War and French & Indian War living historian, and I
certainly endorse the notion that now is not the time or the place for battle
reenactments.  When peoples emotions are in a jumble, the message of a battle
 might certainly be misapprehended.  I personally am abstaining, as are a
great many of my cohorts.  Many of these same folk are former military, they
understand this propriety better than the rest of us might.

Ross Weeks wrote:
<<It is my impression that the act of "killing" is quite a thrill to the
spectators.  I agree entirely with those who realize this is no time to
glorify acts of violence.

I must respectfully argue that at no time is it ever necessary to glorify the
violence of warfare;  yet it is not the purpose of the people who do such
things.  The people who do public military reenactment endeavor to portray
the valor and the hardships of people who were willing to lose their lives
for something they deeply believe in, not the violence itself.  Many living
historians are taking it upon themselves to undertake very exhaustive and
scholarly research into the overall milieux of the common soldier of a given
time period, these people are called "Campaigners" and do a very creditable
job of it.

That a battle reenactment may come off as a glorification of violence is very
unfortunate, and a should be motivator for those who care to avoid that
perception.   If somehow the portrayal of the act of killing is taken as
thrilling by some, it is not meant to be;  it is not my experience, but I'm
sure some do see it as such.

If there is a thrill it is in the attempt to glimpse into the past.  I won't
argue the so-called "time-machine" effect; strangely enough, as a living
historian I don't believe in it.  However, some take it as very real, and I
am not going to rain on their parades, assuming they don't actively deceive
themselves.

Ross Weeks again:
<<There is absolutely nothing wrong, in my view, with focusing on living
conditions during wartime.  It is educational and very human.>>

Hear, hear!   It's important at all times!  Unfortunately, warfare is a very
human thing, but the remembrance of the "homefront" is still often
overlooked.  I would someday like to do a living history vignette of life in
London's tunnels during the blitz. (It's on my list...)

Mark St. John
Living Heritage Inc.
Doing classroom interpretation and other teaching
until that glamorous living history job presents itself.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).