"The Decaying Web..." What it means for our generation.

"The Decaying Web and Our Disappearing History" is a news article on the internet, more accurately, it is about people and the internet. This story on the BBC discussed social media as a form of historical documentation and how this information is vanishing at an astonishing rate. The article brought up some very interesting points about how data-- documents-- are decaying, in a sense, and the consequences for future historians. That is to say that our generation will essentially be undocumented.

While many private companies control the data that now encompasses so much of our social lives, I wonder if there will be issues the will stem from this. For example, many private companies that run these sorts of services (Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) might experience issues accessing information due to potential legal issues. This is one issue that does not even account for the physical problems of storing the information (size/storage capacity limitations, new users vs. inactive users and which one takes priority, and so forth.). Which information will they keep? Whose information will they keep? Why will they keep it? Or should we as public historians begin documenting the internet? Looks like it is time to start printing our emails and Facebook messages.

Here are a few paragraphs from the end of the article:

At the heart of this lies what you might call the paradox of ephemeral communications. Their instantaneous, insubstantial ease is perfect for sharing and debating the most important questions of our time. But it also breeds a newly knotty historical problem – because all this sharing and debate mean precious little, in the long term, if you don’t also know what people are talking about.

With not only diaries and letters but even the relative permanence of email starting to look like something from the last century, it’s a problem that is only going to get more acute. There’s much to celebrate in the power and inclusiveness of new media. Historians researching early 21st Century life from the year 2312, however, will have their work cut out for them – and find that their chances of success depend disproportionately upon those private companies who own so much contemporary social history.

Our descendants will surely be grateful for a record that reflects more than marketable data and consumer preferences. As to preservation, though, the problem may be intractable. Between private profits, the privacy of personal histories and our hunger for perpetual renewal, “history” itself may be a concept ripe for rethinking: not so much the objective sifting of sources as a living thing, perpetually remade across networks for which there’s no time but the present.

Just some food for thought.

Place and Placelessness

In his chapter, "Place and Placelessness in American History," Glassberg talks about the formation of a sense of place, and brings up the argument of some critics that Americans, especially in modern society, lack that sense of place. We discussed this topic in class when we talked about whether or not a utilitarian commercial building like a shopping mall could provide that sense. I think the fascinating thing about this argument is I can definitely see the truths on both sides.

Take for example this quote from Wallace about placelessness:
"Critics argue that in the modern global economy anything can come from anywhere, eroding our perception of the uniqueness of places. They distinguish between an authentic sense of place that has evolved through the interaction of local residents with a distinctive built environment that visibly demonstrates continuity with past land uses, and a place identity that corporate leaders or the mass media have arbitrarily assigned to a standardized, interchangeable, instant landscape."

This summer I had the opportunity to visit my stepmother's cousin's beach house in Norfolk, Virginia. It's part of a glitzy new planned community (built directly adjacent to a down-on-its-luck part of town) where all the houses are built to look older than they are. Some of them are supposed to look like old-fashioned shingled beach cottages, some like colorful Victorians, and still others like Colonial Revivals. While they are beautiful, immaculate, and huge, the sidewalks are wide and walkable, and the views are amazing, the community has a distinctly false feel to it. It's intended to look and feel like a "classic American hometown." To me, it was trying really hard to be a quaint, homey place, but, as Glassberg quotes Wallace Stegner, "No place is a place until the things that have happened in it are remembered in history, ballads, yarns, legends, or monuments." It's nice, but as our guest speaker said the other day of The Greene, it's "make believe."

Now I'll turn to another Glassberg passage:
"Places, in the end, are not interchangeable with other places....even the most undistinguished-looking mall or fast-food restaurant can become a site where a distinctive sense of place and history is created in the community....To those living outside a community, a franchise restaurant there is interchangeable with any other; to local residents, it is a particular place where conversations about the local past occur, where time is passed and becomes 'past.'"

There used to be a Borders bookstore across from Eastgate Mall (near Cincinnati). Last year Borders went bankrupt. The closing of this store was depressing to me, as I had strong personal memories associated with it. Built when I was about eight, it immediately became one of my favorite places. I spent countless hours there over the years. It became a meeting point for my divorced parents to exchange me every other weekend. It was the place I became addicted to frozen coffees, the place I read some of my favorite books, the place I attended midnight releases, the place I did college homework. Maybe it wasn't anything distinctive, even by Borders standards, and I'm sure independent bookstores and coffee shops weren't sorry to see it go. But to me, it represented a great deal of my childhood and young adult life, and I was saddened to lose it.

So I can understand the argument that today’s consumer-driven, high-tech America is suffering from placelessness. But I think Glassberg is more accurate when he says that we have “an acute sense of attachment to multiple places.” Maybe the transient nature of our buildings and our obsession with the present and instant gratification is indicative of a general disregard for historical authenticity. But that doesn’t make the attachments we give to (many) places any less significant. Maybe one day, those trust fund kids in those beach houses will be putting up an historical marker on "ye olde towne greene.” And it won’t have anything to do with the faux Victorian facades of their homes, but the history they make there as a community.

Oh Wallace....

One item that I am finding increasingly frustrating is the treatment Wallace gives his topics in Mickey Mouse History. It is unfortunate that he chooses to adopt such a condescending and hostile tone towards those with whom he disagrees. In the latest chapter, Wallace  covers historical preservation, economic progress, and the sociopolitical issues that battle over which is more valuable. Wallace once again casts aspersions upon any person of means (middle class or wealthy). Any person with any sort of wealth is automatically driven by sheer self-interest; essentially backing historical preservation out of a desire to preserve either social order or check out with a tax write-off. Wallace criticizes the bastion of tradition political conservatism, which he sees as a driving force of exclusion and and reduction in American history. He blasts traditionally-minded neighborhood conservation groups, pointing out the racist origins at the heart of the formation of many. Certainly based upon the length of his arguments alone, he directs more vitriol towards the rich bigoted than towards the poor and bigoted. In addition, his discussion of Jackson Ward, Virginia reflects his own hypocrisy. Jackson Ward was a historically black neighborhood. Wallace complained that once it received historical status, there was an influx of affluent young whites, attracted by the neighborhood's new found historical allure. While Wallace does not mention whether this was a case of gentrification and the displacement of the original residents, his silence is telling in my opinion. By omission alone I am led to believe that this was not the case; I cannot see Wallace leaving out something that which he could rage against. Honestly, I perceive Wallace's approach as just as bigoted and hateful as the conditions that led to the formation of a historically black neighborhood. As Chris mentioned in class, and as the speaker Tuesday discussed, there are several factors (many of them costly) when it comes to appropriately caring for a historic home and by extension neighborhood, especially when they are actively inhabited. Is it moral to preserve historic areas at the expense of the current residents (if it means they might have to move ), or is the lasting value of the home/area greater to the public as a whole? Certainly this is less of an issue when it comes to development projects than it is when compared to preservation projects; is current value greater than future value? And is it possible to balance the unfortunate realities of the needs of historical areas with the need for a cash injection versus in some cases, less affluent long-time residents?

Sense of Place

I've been reflecting quite a bit since yesterday's discussion involving the topic of our sense of place and a place that defines us. I mentioned Florence, Italy as mine but as the place that is culmination of all the places that define me. As a poet, numerous places can define me, who I am but also where I will have a sense of myself and my history with it. It could be the Dayton Art Institute where my passion for art and art history has been nurtured from a brush stroke or in my old high school (Room 240, my creative writing teacher's room) where my writing took root almost ten years ago. Countless places have entries in my mind's historic preservation registry but there will be one that stands out as my link to my home town and represents the foundation of my pre-poetic world. In Beavercreek, we have a place known as the Beavercreek wetlands and it's been a place that has kept a significant importance in my soul since the first day I visited it about two decades ago. to me it is the presentation of Beavercreek's past and holding onto the natural beauty it had before developers transformed its landscape. (sidenote: to the city's great pride, we finally have beavers taking up residence within beavercreek.......something which for most of my life hasn't happened) The artist within me always finds itself being summoned their every season to document the subtle changes be it a new tree, a new family of cranes, mallards or like two years ago beavers and even a slight expansion of the wetland property. The Wetlands is a preserved living and growing part of the city which I feel as long as it is still in existence, my sense of place for this city will remain fully intact, but when the day comes and the final sun rises blankets its residence, I will lose a fragment of my connection and history with Beavercreek but that fragment will remain preserved in the years of photographs and poems that were caught and crafted within its boarders.

Tracks in the Snow

 Published in The Road: A Collection of Poetry

A snowy haze coats the marshlands before me,

No prints nor plants scatter the wooden boardwalk beyond my feet

Dried out cattails languish in frigid wind

Plumes of feathery seeds cling in abeyance to sepia tip,

Stalks creak in colliding snowfall

As one after another flakes pelt the brittle fern green husk.

Jays flit from naked branches

Azure down becomes speckled with white

Screeching once, then twice its voice echoes

Through the desolate marsh like voices before

The closing hours of summer dusk.

Bone-chilling breeze howls across the frozen river,

The horizon blurs in a snowflake mirage

As the subtle scent of fireplace dreams tickle my nose

Chimney smoke bellows from a lone cottage

Tucked away in an alcove of my mind

Where crackling imaginary hickory logs lull me to sleep.

Does your sense of place have to be a building?

     I think it depends. It depends on personal memories of said place. I remember growing up and visiting family members on reservations in Oklahoma. When I think about those particular "places" buildings do not come to mind. I think of the land itself. The land my brother and I used to run on all summer long with cousins and friends. I think of this huge tree, under which I learned how to play a rain song (using a recorder) one summer. I also think of my grandmother who stitched me my first (and other pairs) of moccasins and my great-grandmother who braided my hair. I would spend my summers there sharing my experiences of living in the "big city" and we (my cousins and me) would talk about how different our schools were/are. My memories of "home" take me back to the land I would spend summers on not wanting to leave but knowing that my family wanted me to go back and take advantage of all the opportunities that were presented to me.
    In class I mentioned a building, Bethesda Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio where I was born. I was the first of my maternal grandparents first grand child not born a on reservation. My father was in the Air Force when I was born so this is partly why my birth did not take place on a reservation. My family vowed that my life would be different from theirs. So I guess they stuck to their word, I am the first to go to college and graduate. Back to my original statement one's sense of place depends on where and what memories come to mind. 

The Moral Duty of Public Historians Everywhere

Hi all, this is my first post. I am going to start out by commenting on the group discussion we had last week. The topic was about museums and how they choose to exhibit. I raised a fundamental question that museums have a duty to be objective. They are the keepers of our past. To me they have a moral duty to present factual history. In other words, just present what happened, when did it happen, why did it happen, who was affected, and how did it happen. These questions ask the facts. These questions don't ask for hypothetical responses. It is the public historian's duty to answer these questions with facts. When the public come to museums, they want to be informed. The people want confirmation about what they read, watch, or hear is the truth or not. Sure they want to be entertained also. Any museum can present a entertaining exhibit while also keeping it factual.
All museums have a mission statement that they adhere to. The Air Force Museum in Dayton's mission is to educate the public about military aircraft. I believe that they do a fabulous way but also in a factual way. I went to the museum just recently. One exhibit they had was about the synopsis on Little Boy bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. When I read the contents of the exhibit, I was objectively informed. The exhibit was talking about the reasons behind the military use of the bomb. One fact mentions the possibility of over 200,000 U.S. casualties for a possible land invasion of Japan. This is a fact that interested me. The museum is not partisan. This is an example of disseminating historical information about a artifact. Nor did it compromise the mission of the organization.
When I raised this question a classmate raised the issue of funding and timing constraints. I don't dispute this. However it cannot be a reason to not objectively present a historical account. In these troubled times, it is still the museums' duties to present factual information. The author Wallace points out that public historians are educators. It is their job to educate. Anything on the contrary is blasphemy. Museum officials should adhere to Wallace.   

Spending Wealth For Glory

I was just reading Mickey Mouse History and I came across a passage where Wallace mentions that he argued earlier about how the superwealthy have done things like historic preservation merely to get their name on something and to show how wealthy they've become.  He's probably trying to get a rise out of people for it, but can't people with money just do something for something that they think is a good cause?  Must they always have an underlying reason for spending their money publicly?
I always think back to Rome during many of our class discussions and our readings.  A similar argument can be made that men, politicians mostly, just did things to make themselves look better so they could get more votes and a bigger, stronger power base.  I still believe that there are wealthy people out there that spend their money for good causes.  Perhaps it's the American mentality that if someone with money is spending it on something other than their business then it must be for selfish or self-preserving reasons.  I don't know.  What do you think?

Building Huggers

If I were a tree hugger, I might gush over a particularly fine specimen of pine or, watching someone toss their Starbucks cup in the trash, shed a tear for the poor forest that was obliterated so that we might not burn our fingers on a steaming caramel macchiato. Alas, I am not a tree hugger, but a building hugger. I see a cool building ("cool" being a totally subjective and probably worthless term, of course) and I immediately want to know when it was built, what it was used for, what it's used for now, when those additions were put on, and whether that siding is original. My knowledge of historic architecture is rudimentary at best, but that doesn't stop me. If you want to avoid being recognized as a tourist, you probably don't want to bring me on vacation, because I will be the girl gaping at the monuments, squealing "OH MY GOD THOSE MURALS ON THE CEILING ARE SO AWESOME AND HOLY CRAP CHECK OUT THAT STAIRCASE!"

So I connected with something George McDaniel said in his essay, "At Historic Houses and Buildings: Connecting Past, Present, and Future." He starts telling this little sentimental story about a mother explaining God's love to a little girl and just when I'm thinking "Okay, where is he going with this?" he says:

"Belief in abstractions, of course, is necessary to guide and inspire our work, but finally we need something tangible. In the case of history, many people have loved the subject, the story of the past; historic houses and buildings make it tangible. They put "skin" on the abstraction of time past."

We can read about history until the cows come home, but just as photographs put a face on the past, historic houses provide its skin. Who hasn't toured an historic house or museum and reveled in the feeling of safety, of being tucked away from the present and all its uncertainties? (Sure, not everything about the past was good. A considerable amount of it was really terrible.) But I think interpreting the past through historic buildings allows for a level of immersion and connection that just cannot be beat. Something about being inside the same garishly floral papered walls, of walking the same wide-planked oak floors as people of the past, encourages reflection and contemplation. Historic buildings provide a strong sense of place: in space, in time, and in the world. (Why hello, Mr. Glassberg.)

Brief Reflections on an Internship, a Place, and an Article

Upon reading Antoinette J. Lee's article, "Historical Preservationists and Cultural Resources Managers: Preserving America's Historic Places," I could not help but chuckle when she briefly discussed government involvement in historic preservation. This is why: the following story appeared on WDTN, dealing with the transfer of the Patterson Homestead (where I currently intern) to Dayton History from the city of Dayton. The Homestead has been managed by Dayton History for years but it was donated to the city by the Patterson family and was therefore a city property-run. From my time there, I noticed this was a big problem; Dayton itself is a little too cash-strapped to really care for the home. Lee states that historic sites need to have compelling reasons for formal recognition that will hopefully translate into "modest levels of government protection and involvement...;" however, this government involvement and protection can prove a blessing and a curse. While protected in name, the physical structure of the site often falls victim to masses red tape. Government agencies hire contractors which have to go through a bidding process; this frequently proves a lengthy. Meanwhile, whatever repairs need to be done remain undone. Including chimneys, rather sizable branches pulled down in storms, and a long list of other maintenance-related tasks. In addition to this, the city of Dayton only has one painter that is allowed to work on any government-owned structure. The inefficiency of this was astounding! It took weeks to fix and paint a damaged wall (oh the joys of 200 year old homes and mold)... While I am unaware of the details concerning this transfer, the . In cases such as this, I really do feel it is better to have this site in the hands of a private organization. Does any one feel that in the case of historic structures, that private institutions can care for them better than public ones? Or is this a circumstantial case? (I allude to Karis' discussion of QUANGOs and Eltham Palace.)

On a different note, I can really relate to many of the elements she discusses in her article. I have learned a lot about the physical layout of Dayton from my internship. From a discussion on where "Slidertown" (a somewhat sketchy area of Dayton back in the day) may be located, to the path that Rubicon Creek followed before vanishing, to what buildings on the Patterson's farm stood roughly where. This might not seem terribly exciting to most people but having spent 3 years in the area, I greatly appreciated getting a sense of the what the area used to be like before BW3s, Ben and Jerry's, and Brown Street construction. I also gained some insight into the origins of familiar street names; I felt a greater sense of appreciation for the very noisy Cauldwell construction-- if only for learning a little about the family itself.

Lee's article discusses preservation historians and their work. I have found that I am an example of the type of reaction I can only assume that they wish to garner. It is easier to relate to a physical place than to an abstract imagining; the place is tangible, real, and if preserved and presented well, can transcend a sense of time (or history if you will).While "Historical Preservationists and Cultural Resources Managers: Preserving America's Historic Places" has quite a broad scope, I have managed to pull some items to which I can relate from the text. Certainly the Patterson Homestead has benefited from being associated with a very well-known Dayton family but I am certain other structures have not fared so well (such as Cincinnati's Albee Theater.)

Fresco Fiasco

In my previous post, I alluded to the risks of not hiring a professional for preservation/restoration work. Speak of the devil that same story has reared its head again today. She apparently volunteered to restore the 19th century image for her church and botched it. The results of the restoration can be found in any news story on the issue or by simply browsing meme sites such as 9gag for a few minutes (werewolf Jesus, monkey Jesus, fresco FAIL, restoration FAIL, the list of names is long indeed...) It has spawned its own hashtag: #DIY Jesus on blogging sites... Who knew failure could be so... popular.

The woman who attempted the restoration of the fresco has now hired lawyers and wants a cut of the money the church has raised due to an increase in tourism prompted by her "work." Apart from a clear demonstration of "free isn't always better" and of the problems that can arise from volunteer labor, albeit in the extreme, there is another valuable point to consider. Apparently all you need is a meme to get people to visit a location (preferably without destroying objects.) Certainly promoting errors and the destruction of objects would not be the goal but this seems like a feasible strategy to not only foster public involvement with a historical site but also inject a little humor. If it generates a little revenue on the side, no harm done (unless of course there is a severe art restoration, well... fail).

Here's the story.

Stand back, I'm going to try SCIENCE!

In the process of working on my paper for Virginia Weygandt's course (HST 7650), I find myself yearning for a greater knowledge of chemistry and the chemical properties of objects. The situation reminds me of the popular, if not nerdy, webcomic XKCD's t-shirt (see below). Aside from making the research and writing of the paper much easier, I am begging to see how poorly some objects I have come into contact with in the past have been cared for. I am not sure if this stems from lack of knowledge or just a list of priorities that does not place the physical well-beings of objects.

What sparked part of my realization was this article on the BBC (sorted into the category of what else-- science!): Van Gogh's Flowers In A Blue Vase damage seen in X-rays. The premise of the article is pretty obvious from the description. Apparently the cadmium in the yellow paint Van Gogh used reacted with the protective varnished added much later to the painting, forming cadmium oxalate.
Here's the study mentioned in the article just in case anyone is interested. It explains the chemical reactions that took place in much greater detail. This reaction was a surprise find but it underlies a key worry. In our efforts to preserve things, does inadequate knowledge of the chemical properties of objects ultimately end up damaging them than the protective measures have preserved them? Do we now need to become chemists too?

Certainly there are companies that can be hired to do this sort of high-level work but the sheer expense of it is beyond smaller institutions and will certainly not be performed on virtually unknown artists. However, I feel this situation calls into question a lot of the issues with past preservation. As the speakers from the Air Force Museum said, they do deal with poor presentation methods that have damaged artifacts (the handwritten copy of the air force song for example). From the archives class yesterday we certainly learned the dangers of storing photos in the sticky-paged plastic binders. The Van Gogh was varnished not during the artist's lifetime but by a later holder of the work once it had gained value. There are types of varnish that do not react this way with cadmium-based paints but was it possible to determine this outcome beforehand?

I think one aspect that seems to be very neglected in public history and conservation training is why these things occur; being furnished with a material explanation alone is limiting because it is the knowledge of processes that is most applicable to challenging situations. Is this a reasonable expectation, though? One in the public history field already has to be a "jack of all trades," wearing numerous hats and balancing several different responsibilities at once, history, artifacts, interpretation, education, outreach, budgets. It is necessary for us to become chemists as well? Should those involved in conservation be actively involved in investigating  aspects of the objects in their charge to maximize their protection? Should we tell people to "Stand back!" as we attempt science or just leave that to people with the necessary college degree.
Or should we have to swallow our pride, accept that we cannot know everything or save everything... or alternatively cry over our budgets and hire a professional before this happens.

A rich man's world?

I feel like we have all been talking a lot about money in class lately, sadly not just because we love Abba. It's got me thinking about the pursuit of money and the heritage sector and kind of indirectly how I came to be here.

I used to work for English Heritage. They are a 'QUANGO' (A quasi-autonomus non-governmental organisation - try saying that after a few drinks) which basically means that they get money from the UK government and get told how to spend some, but not all of it and also have to follow some guidelines from a government department (in this case the Department for Culture, Media and Sport). Anyway, EH maintain over 400 historic sites in England from big ones like Stonehenge to the sites of ruined castles with hardly anything left to see. They are also in charge of listing buildings and telling other organisations that look after historic sites what they can and can't do. They are 'Le grand fromage' when it comes to heritage in England and let me say first off that I think, in general they do a great job.

I used to work at Eltham Palace in London -http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/eltham-palace-and-gardens/  (Oh and those Mediaeval tours they are advertising, I created those. Fact.)

It is a great, unique building, 1930s art deco mansion tacked onto a mediaeval great hall with mediaeval and Tudor ruins all over the grounds, Henry VIII lived there as a child (not in the art deco mansion though obviously). It is also one of the most popular wedding venues in London and hosts numerous events including film and photo-shoots every year. It makes more money than the 14 other EH properties in London combined and the money it makes helps to keep them open.

This was my problem, It was great that Eltham made money so that visitors could enjoy it and other EH properties but it wasn't great that film crews damaged the building (paint on Jacobean chairs, scratches on the roof from lighting rigs) and nobody did anything because they didn't want to lose the contract. We were supposed to close for the whole of January for preventative conservation work and this time kept getting eroded, (let's have a four day film shoot in a room you have just cleaned so you not only lose four days, you also have to clean it all again). The longer I worked there, the more depressed I became by how the house was used to make money at the expense of preserving the fabric of the building and the artefacts in it. The people in charge of managing the building only cared about making money (Sell more pencils! Sell more jute bags! Sell more Lemon Curd!) and the voices of the curators and collections care team didn't really get heard. I eventually left because I felt that what was happening was immoral and I knew that I couldn't change it from the position I was in.

Of course making money is important and necessary, but I wonder where you draw the line? Should the people who manage historic buildings come from a preservation or business background?

5 Objects

So I am a fan of the National Museum of American History on Facebook, and they posted this on their page. It's from their blog, called O Say Can You See.

http://blog.americanhistory.si.edu/osaycanyousee/2012/08/who-are-you-in-5-objects.html

It explains how some education specialists and others from the National Museum of American History went to schools across the country (and internationally) and asked kids to identify themselves in 5 objects. The blog said that "today's everyday stuff will help historians of the future know what it was like to live in America in 2012." I never really thought about this before -- that my stuff may be significant to historians of the future. I can't decide if this is really cool or really scary. But anyway, I talked to my mom about this and asked her what her 5 objects would be. She instantly rattled off "my wedding ring, a picture of Steve [my step-dad], a picture of my kids, my crochet bag, and seeds from my garden." It was really easy for her to identify what defines her life (probably because my mom is awesome).

I, on the other hand, am having an existential crisis about this. Who am I? What defines me? What will historians find in 500 years that will describe me? Will I be an obscure mention in some graduate student's paper called "Life in 2012: These People Were Crazy"? In a way, I think that would be really cool. But what will my 5 objects be?

I guess I'd include this necklace that was my dad's, and a picture of my family now (me, my mom, my step-dad, and my sister). I would include some kind of Wright State memorabilia -- maybe my Bachelor's diploma or a t-shirt or something like that. So that's 3 things. I guess I should include something about history -- maybe a copy of my honors thesis from undergrad. What should the last thing be? I mean, I could put a Twix bar in there and be done with it. But it should be something meaningful to me. I know. I have this video that my great-uncle made a couple years ago about his experiences in World War II. I think that would be it.

The only problem -- a couple of these things only define my life right now. I'm sure I'll write better papers than that honors thesis and get a job somewhere and that will begin to define me later. I think we should be able to have 5 objects for each stage in our lives. I bet most of the 5 stay the same, though. 

So, what would you include?

Avoiding Controversy

I was just reading our first article in Public History for tomorrow and Mark Howell says "Too often public history is dumbed down to its lowest common denominator, the result being a pablum of information that overgeneralizes and avoids controversial topics."  I think that it is too true that to keep people interested and moving quickly information has to be dumbed down and simple so no one gets upset.  This line also reminded me of a program I watched on TV called The Falling Man.  It was a program about the picture of a falling man from the World Trade Center on 9/11.  I didn't get very far in the program, I didn't have time to finish it, but at the beginning it said that the pictures were never published because of what they showed and they had not been seen since.  People were afraid to confront the painful and controversial truth.  It makes me wonder what people will do if they get confronted with something that they can't avoid or be dumbed down by museums.

Maryland My Maryland, Civil War Reenacting, and Public History

Maryland My Maryland (MMM)

A 150^th Anniversary Reenactment of the Battle of Antietam

                Oddly enough as I was wearing my wool uniform and sitting under a canvas fly dodging the sporadic rain showers that occurred last Saturday in Maryland I was thinking of what I was going to say in my blog post for this class. I figured I’ve travelled all this way and am doing something that’s of a historical nature so there’s no way I can’t I can not blog about it. But, I did have some reservations. Mainly that of how can I talk about this event and explain this hobby I take part in to you without writing an epic novel. Well, I haven’t quite cleared that up, but here it goes anyway.

                As we finally got down to the last hour of our journey from Ohio to Maryland I laid down the book Public History, that I had been trying to conquer throughout the trip and had surprisingly done so with some success, on the floor of the car. As the GPS navigation clock counted down to an hour I proudly yelled to the driver of the vehicle, my friend and fellow reenactor, Jason Hunt “One hour until Antietam!” I continued to exclaim the time till we made it to the Antietam National Battlefield every ten minutes. After half an hour of this I knocked it off because of an annoyed look Jason gave me, but the excitement continued. However, as excited as I was I was trying to get in that mindset that many reenactors try to get into before they reach the event site. I try to think of what these soldiers had been going through up to this point in the war, more specifically what these men went through as elements of each army pushed their men both mentally and physically to make it to this geographic location, how many of the US regiments involved were just coming off of forced marches to try to stop Lee’s northern advance. You’ll never be able to feel what they felt nor be able to match up your mindset with theirs entirely, but we try to achieve a glimpse of it even before we put on our wool uniforms and stiff leather shoes.  It’s something you do to prepare yourself for living history so that you can portray these men accurately and authentically so as to honor them.

                This is my eighth year of reenacting. I joined the 91^st Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Company B and have been a member since. In fact before I joined I bought most of my uniform, something I found out later was a costly mistake. The reason I got into this hobby was really because of two family vacations I had recently been on.

The first of these family vacations was to Colonial Williamsburg. There I was enamored with the living history aspect of the place. I was a little kid surrounded by all of these people dressed in 18^th century clothing, talking like the colonists talked, and some hard at work with the tools of the time period. I pronounced it as “cool” whereas my friends back home probably would have termed it as “weird.” I was starting to find out my interests were different. I was, cue the melo-dramatic music, a history geek, a term I now proudly accept, but at the time I never got far at the cool table talking about Williamsburg or later on about reenacting. The next trip was to Gettysburg. I only saw one reenactor there, but I was instantly hooked on the Civil War the minute I got on that bus for the tour. I think my face imprint is probably still embedded into the window of that bus we were on as I strained to look and see what the tour guide was pointing out. So now I had these two things that stuck with me as being cool: living history and the Civil War.

It finally came together when I was at my uncle’s house and had the History Channel on when they had a behind-the-scenes of a War of 1812 program on. There was a teenager, not much older than I was at the time, who was talking about how he was a War of 1812 reenactor. Immediately it popped in my head, “There had to be reenacting for the Civil War!” I rushed to the computer and Googled Civil War Reenacting Ohio. From that list of organizations that popped up I started emailing their “unit contacts.” That winter I went to meet the members of the 91^st Ohio I had joined.

So eight years later here I am with my friend as we are pulling into the Visitors Center parking lot for the Antietam National Battlefield Park. This was my third time here and second for the purpose of reenacting. As soon as we got out of the car you could just tell they were swamped with reenactors from this Maryland My Maryland event. Some of the people we walked by you could sort of just tell were reenactors. After 8 years in this hobby I’ve developed a sort of Spidey Sense for reenactors. Some were people I recognized from events, and others, most apparently, had their uniforms on. Mainly I went into the Visitors Center to do my interview portion for the site-visit evaluation for this class, but of course I looked around and caught the tail end of their video. After this we were off to tour the battlefield. I knew were most of the places and monuments were within the battlefield, but we went ahead and used the app Jason had downloaded that gives you a lot of information on the site you are visiting. Starting with the Dunker Church we went inside and immediately I pointed out to Jason the spot on the floor where I had slept when I was there with the Army of the Ohio (reenacting organization) for a living history event. I joking remarked to him that I was surprised they haven’t put the plaque up yet to designate that spot on the floor.

                Reenacting is a great hobby in the fact that it allows you to do things you might never get to do otherwise, such as sleeping in the Dunker Church. I’ve gotten private tours of museums, a chance to look at some rare and valuable artifacts, the chance to tour some private homes that were around at the time of the war and either played a role directly or indirectly in the fighting, but I think above all it is the people you meet in the hobby and the people you get to teach about the war and the soldiers that are the two most rewarding experiences. I’m friends with people from New York, Pennsylvania, Marlyand, Kentucky, West Virginia, and of course Ohio that I would have never met if it hadn’t been for dressing up like a Civil War soldier. It sounds odd but you develop a real sense of camaraderie with the guys that serve in the ranks with you, akin to what the real soldiers described.  Some become an almost integrated part of your life and like family.

The other great experience is talking to and teaching the public about the Civil War. Mainly when we do talks we talk about the life, uniform, and equipment of the Civil War soldier. I’ve gone to classrooms and talked about the uniform and equipment of the Union soldiers and I’ve taught a Civil War class to high school kids where two days of the two week class were devoted to them learning drill. But the instance of teaching the public that remains stuck in my mind is that of setting up at the Ohio State Fair last year. Going into it I thought that we would get maybe fifty people tops to look at our tables laden with our uniforms, gear, rifles, swords, and merchandise we were selling to help raise money for conservation of Ohio’s Civil War Battle Flags. But no! We had literally thousands of people each day stop by our tent and talk to us. There was a line to talk to us! It was mind blowing, but great! People were so interested! It was quite refreshing and was a real reminder to us that this is why we are in this hobby, to educate people through living history portrayal.

                Jason and I wrapped up our tour with Burnside’s Bridge and found the McKinley monument on our way out that Jason had wanted to find. It was about 6pm by the time we left the battlefield and I was starting to feel a little antsy. I was having a great time touring the battlefield, but I wanted to get to the event site. We had our “last meal” of real food for the weekend, that is until Sunday after the event was over, at the Sharpsburg Cracker Barrel.  After our meal we paid and set out for finding the event site in Boonsboro. I was very anxious by then. I had a sinking feeling that I was going to be late for the battalion’s (Army of the Ohio) sergeant meeting which I, as Sergeant Major, was going to conduct. My nerves were helped a bit by the really beautiful scenery we drove through, several very old farms and one striking, stone barn with mere slits in the stone for “windows” met us on this journey. After only a short while we made it to the event site. Surprisingly traffic was backed up waiting to get into the parking lot. It was going to be a big event, bigger than I had expected. We got in, parked in the temporary area of the field reserved for registration, went up to the canopy and signed the paperwork they had for us, bought an event t-shirt, said hello to Tim Bills, a New Yorker and our Lieutenant Colonel, and went and parked the car for weekend. We changed from our “street clothes” to our Civil War clothes. For me it was a pair of drawers, undershirt, cotton shirt, sky-blue wool trousers, wool socks, sack coat, forage cap, and a pair of brogans (shoes.) We then put on our accouterments: a cartridge box slung across the body with the box portion on the right hip, waist belt with cap pouch and bayonet in the bayonet scabbard went on next, then the haversack overly laden with period food, next was the knapsack containing a blanket, a couple gum blankets, shelter-half, an extra shirt, pair of socks, and other small personal effects such as soap and a housewife (sewing kit), and finally over all this went a canteen.  We grabbed our guns and headed off for US camp to find the Army of the Ohio battalion headquarters, stopping briefly at registration to look at their site map.

                Ok, so I’ll finally explain to you what the “Army of the Ohio” is. The Army of the Ohio (AotO) is the umbrella organization, in military lingo it is the battalion, that smaller organizations such as my unit, the 91^st Ohio, belong to. The 91^st Ohio is considered as one company within the Army of the Ohio although it retains the number of a regiment as an organization. Smaller company level organizations come together to make up a battalion. The battalion organizations often are members of an even larger organization. In the case of the AotO we belong to the Blue-Gray Alliance (BGA.) The BGA contains both US and Confederate (CS) organizations. The AotO has units from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. These units have come together voluntarily to join the AotO.

Within the AotO we have a corporate offices and military offices. The corporate is usually very small consisting of a President and Secretary/ Treasurer, but now we have a Board of Directors since the AotO has decided to become incorporated as a 501c3 organization within the State of Ohio. The military offices are that of Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, Major, Adjutant, Sergeant Major, and Quartermaster. To choose who resides in what office and what events will be placed on the battalion schedule we usually have two winter meetings one in November and one in January for the leadership of the various companies within the battalion to attend. At the November meeting we hold elections for these offices. With the Army of the Ohio, as I mentioned earlier, I am the Sergeant Major and I am also on the Board of Directors. Those persons voted into a military office take on the role of what that rank would have done within the battalion in the 1860s military.  This is similar to what is done at the company level as well. To use the example of the 91^st we have a winter meeting where we decide what events we would like to go to and vote for military and corporate officers. Corporate offices within the 91^st are a President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Military offices are Captain, 1^st Sergeant, 2^nd Sergeant, 1^st Cpl, and 2^nd Cpl.

                The event Maryland My Maryland itself is important to discuss when talking about the hobby. There are two reenactments of Antietam that are occurring this year. One was Maryland My Maryland  last weekend and the other is another 150^th reenactment of Antietam that will be occurring this weekend. This shows a rift in the hobby between the two fields of reenactors. What divides them is their adherence to and the importance they place on “authenticity.” Authenticity pertains to how closely reenactors try to maintain faithfulness to the use of only period correct items and maintaining authenticity in their dress and drill. There are two classes of reenactors termed as in-authentic. The first is farbs, something no one in the hobby wishes to be called. These persons are most interested in dressing up and making a big bang with their rifles, their interest in impersonating the soldiers of the Civil War basically ends there. Their uniforms and gear more often than not have the look of Civil War equipment but its authenticity ends there. Luckily they are a minority. The next class is termed as mainstreamers who are “ok” on the authenticity scales. Their gear is of better quality than farbs, but usually is not entirely as authentic as it could be usually being of poor quality or not made entirely or constructed in a period correct manner. Their camps are made up of many A-frame tents adorned with too many comforts such as a cot and a cooler. There are two classes of reenactors termed as authentic. The first class is progressive reenactors. Progressive reenactors do the research and strive to have clothing and equipment made from period correct materials, using period correct patterns, and put together by period correct construction methods. There are no coolers or cots in this camp. They eat period correct rations. Hardcore reenactors maintain the highest level of authenticity. In reality there is not much difference between authenticity levels of progressives and hardcores. The main visible difference between these two is that progressive reenactors will associate with mainstream reenactors and help them improve their kit to a level of higher authenticity. Hardcores tend to disassociate themselves from less authentic individuals.

                The Maryland My Maryland event is put on for the more authentically minded reenactors. It is more demanding in its authenticity standards and often times is even more physically demanding in its scenarios calling for prolonged engagements, longer marches, and at times calling for men to sleep on arms without shelter. The reasoning behind much of these more demanding even features is that the overall scenario of the event is based on the historic record of what troops did during the battle being portrayed. Often times a reenacting group bringing a number of men will be asked by event planners to take on a unit impersonation, the unit in these cases are regiments that fought in the actual battle. The event planner for this event is Chris Anders. He is well known amongst the reenacting community for planning and orchestrating these more progressive events. He does a large amount of research into the battle, restricts registrations based on the ratios of Union to Confederate forces present at the battle and further the ratios of infantry, artillery, and cavalry, and scripts battle scenarios that are play-by-play recreations of segments of the actual battle they represent. These events even go to the extent of finding landscapes similar to the landscape of the actual battle location. Sometimes these landscapes are even created to match the scenario. At Maryland My Maryland an entire cornfield was planted. Running parallel to the cornfield was a pike flanked by two rail fences to match the actual Cornfield battle at Antietam.

                The first Anders event I attended was my “baptism” into the progressive field of reenacting. In my early days I had been what you could term as mainstream and at times farby, but after hearing my fellow 91^st members talk about the awesome times they had at Anders events I decided to do research and update my kit with clothing and equipment that were more authentically made. With my new more authentic kit I went to Anders’ 145^th anniversary of Gettysburg event called At High Tide. It was the single most fun I’ve ever had in the hobby. This event and its insistence on authenticity made the whole reenacting experience better. By wearing the authentic gear and eating the authentic food you had a more rewarding experience that brought you closer to an understanding of what the real soldiers went through. By attending a more progressive event you are more apt to have a “period moment” in which you look around and in your view is a sight that the real soldiers must have witnessed as well. It’s a spectacular thing! I also found that a more authentic kit helped to give the public a truer understanding of what the Civil War soldier looked like. Ever since the High Tide event I have been researching my impression and feeling more rewarded in my event experience.

                So as Jason and I journeyed off into the throngs of the progressive event we got lost and only after walking around for approximately half an hour we found the US camp and then found the AotO headquarters. Jason wondered off to find the rest of the 91^st members and I went to HQ to prepare for my sergeants meeting, but due to the fact that there had been several changes in the schedule I was relieved from conducting the meeting by the Adjutant. After the sergeants and then an officers meeting I bedded down amongst the rest of the battalion staff and wondered what tomorrow would bring.

                We were awoken by bugles and by the fife and drum playing reveille. I reluctantly awoke packed up my knapsack and put my coffee to boiling on the nearest fire. I found Jason and took half the salt pork we had gotten and fried it in my canteen half. Coffee, salt pork, and hardtack was my breakfast. Around quarter till 8 we formed the battalion for drill. We marched out the drill field where the companies broke off for company drill and then we reformed the battalion for battalion drill for a few moments. After this we marched back to camp and let the men rest before the next formation for battle. The event opened at 9am to the public who began to trickle into the camps. No doubt the gray skies and the threat of showers reduced the amount of visitors. Around this time I got a detail from a company to put up the fly for the staff officers. Oddly such a simple thing as having four or five men working to raise a fly attracted the attention of several spectators walking by with their cameras. Once this was done I set to sewing back on my Sergeant Major stripes to my sleeve and this too elicited several questions and pictures taken by the passing public.

Around the time of our first call at 11:30 there was a steady stream of public coming into watch the upcoming battle. This battle was to portray the fighting at Fox’s Gap that occurred before the battle had moved to Antietam.  A warning for a torrent of rain accompanied by high winds delayed the battle. We were all in line and awaiting orders to move into the fighting when the rain started. Myself and Lieutenant Colonel Bills moved rapidly to cover up our gear and the gear of the other staff officers we had left under the fly. While we were in camp an order was given for the men to seek shelter. They broke ranks and hurried to the shelter of their dog tents just as the beginning of the shower started. As men streamed back to camps our fly became a haven to many men who were trying to get out of the rain. For a while it was standing room only. The spectators also dispersed and we invited one family under our fly to dodge the rain. While they remained there with us we talked with them and one of the sergeants explained the equipment and firing process to them. After two showers had passed us we reformed for a do-over. This time we made it to the field, passing by the spectators. We advanced within 100 yards of the enemy who fell back. We advanced further and just as we did so we saw the columns of Confederates massed and ready to come out of the gap. One of their battalions rushed onto the field and into line and pushed us back. Many of our men broke ranks, but we reformed and put some more fire on them as fresh battalions came up to take our place. During the height of the fighting we took a good number of casualties. As the men went down the other sergeants and I helped to pull them to the rear. Finally under severe fire the battalion broke and the men dispersed to a wood line.

All of this had been scripted and based on the actions of an Ohio unit that had fought at Fox’s Gap. I should probably take this opportunity to explain how we “take hits.” The question of “How do you know when to die?” is the second most asked question that spectators ply to us next to “Are you hot in that uniform?” Most units and reenactors take hits on their own accord. They simply choose to “go down” when the moment feels right or if the fighting seems like its become quite hot. This is the way most organizations do it. Some units hand out casualty cards. These will say if you are wounded, sometimes even where your wound is located, or if you are killed. Within these progressive scripted scenarios for those units that take hits on their own we try to make sure to communicate to the men that this was about when the actual unit we are portraying took a number of hits or that this is the climax of our fighting here so we need to be able to leave wounded on the field. This is important to do not just for our own experience as reenactors, but also important to do because we have a crowd of spectators watching us and leaving no dead or wounded on the field would be grossly inaccurate.

The wood line that we entered was on a rise giving us a spectacular view of the battle. We rested and sat down for a while. Many of us watched the battle progress. Once the fighting had reached its scripted ending the spectators cheered. We reformed the battalion, cleared our weapons, and went back to camp. Once things settled down we learned that the dusk battle that had been scheduled had been called off due the looming threat of severe storms. We now had a lot of free time on our hands. Shortly before 5 the Major, some of our 91^st members, and myself walked over to the sutler area to look around. Sutlers during the war and in today’s reenactments are persons who would set up stores to sell items to the soldiers. Today there are a lot more sutlers and they are usually more specialized in what they are selling and of course there is the modern food vendor set up to sell hotdogs and hamburgers to the public as well as to the reenactors that want to step out of authenticity for a minute to gain some nourishment from “real” food. While we were at the sutlers we somewhat skeptically sat down to watch a period comedy that was being performed. To our great surprise it was actually hilarious and very enjoyable. None of it was lost in translation form 19^th century to the 21^st. It was nice to see spectators gathered around and laughing at the puns, jokes, and antics of the men on the “stage.” After the play was over we walked around to some of the sutlers and browsed their wares, then moved back to camp.

To most of our delight within the battalion we still had the opportunity to perform a night march to the area where the cornfield scenario would take place the next morning. The AotO was able to muster up two companies of men to go. Of the staff officers the Lieutenant Colonel, Major, and I chose to go leaving the camp under the charge of the Colonel and Adjutant. We stepped off at about 9:30pm marching out of camp. The brigade staff came out and greeted us as we left thinking it was wonderful that some of the men were still willing to brave the so far uncooperative weather. We eventually found our way, but for some reason or another had to go behind and past the Confederate pickets on our way to our own picket line. This kinda killed the chance for a period moment, but it was just something that had to be done because a road was closed for modern reasons. So we marched past the Rebels who had big bonfires going, as that was right on with the historical account of the cornfield. The Confederate troops at the cornfield the night before the actual battle had fires going and could see the outline of US troops moving into line on the other side of the corn. Once past their picket line we passed into our own. The Lieutenant Colonel asked the commander of the troops already there where we should go to from there. We were given the option of sleeping behind the closest tree line without fires or moving on to a second tree line with fires. The majority of the men chose to sleep without fires. We moved behind the closest tree line laid out our blankets and gum blankets in the dark and went to sleep.

Morning came very early. We woke up at 5am and packed up our gear. We were expecting the rest of the battalion to show up around 5:30 or so. The two companies were formed and we marched to the point where the battalion would meet us, stacked arms, and put the men at rest. The battalion finally showed up and we formed on them in front of the tree line. The sun started to peek above the hills and the morning fog was starting to dissipate. At 6:30 a group of skirmishers moved into the cornfield and sporadic firing was heard on our front. The skirmishers, no doubt, had reached the Confederate picket line. Our battalion, accompanied by another battalion on our left, was ordered into the corn. We moved into the corn struggling to keep our line as we encountered the rigid stalks. We passed through the skirmishers and immediately onto the rebel front. We opened fire. The smoke from our lines combined with the battalion on our left and from the rebels to our front filled the cornfield with smoke like a dense fog. We were pushed back and then we pushed them back. Eventually the battalion to our left was gone. With no support on our left flank we had no choice but to pull out of the field with rebels hot on our tails. After we reformed our lines the fighting continued as another battalion took our place. After a while we were ordered in again. This time many of the stalks had been laid flat on the ground. Also on the ground were heaps of rebel dead and wounded. That was a period moment for sure. It looked like the pictures you see taken of the battle soon after the fighting was over.

We finally advanced out of the corn and as soon as we had reached the open field there was a battalion of rebels to our front. After exchanging a few volleys they rapidly moved off, ending the scenario. The cornfield scenario was probably the best fight I have ever been in because of its authenticity leading to so many awesome sights that lead to many a period moment. We stacked arms and men went back over the field to collect their friends who had taken hits and to pick up the knapsacks many had left in the wood line. After this we reformed, moved closer to a tree line, stacked arms again, and were put at rest for a long while. Many of the men took rails from the fence, which it was okeyed for us to do, to built fires. With the fires going the men began to cook up their lunches, some started playing cards, others talked with their pards, and some decided to take a nap.

The cornfield battle we had just participated in was a non spectator battle. The next battle we had on our schedule would be. At 10am the event opened to the public and this being a much nicer day without the threat of rain many spectators started to fill up the viewing area. At noon the battle kicked off. We were the last battalion to enter the fighting. Due to some complications in performance of the script, in part due to some real medical emergencies on the field which were not serious thankfully, our role in the battle was cut down and so we didn’t get to perform the part we had planned to play. This was understandable, but unfortunate. None-the-less the spectators enjoyed the battle and again cheered wildly. This was the end of the event for us. After the battalion was marched off the field and the Colonel said thank you to the guys for coming out. I bid a couple of quick goodbye’s and Jason and I retreated to the car. We passed by the spectators that were still there and many of them thanked us and little kids waved at us. We waved back and smiled feeling like largely over dressed sports stars leaving the arena. Finally back to the car we took off the sweat stained and still rain dampened clothing we had on and became “normal” again by putting on a pair of shorts, t-shirt, sneakers, and a baseball cap to hide our unwashed hair. We got in the car turned on the radio and began the journey back to Ohio from a fantastic weekend of living history fun.

I apologize for the lengthy nature of this, but I figured if I would have to post something about reenacting again this would give you a good understanding of what this hobby is. While we may not have a lot of direct contact with the public within this event we took part in largely scripted scenarios that showed to the public with relatively good accuracy what the fighting at Antietam was like. Living history events such Maryland My Maryland are definitely one way to perform public history. It is a good way to interpret the past as well as a good way for the historian to step in the shoes of the persons of the past and gain perspective that just simply can’t be gained from sitting down and reading a book, although living historians do a lot of that as well.

For more information you can visit the following:

The Army of the Ohio website: http://www.armyoftheohio.com/

Maryland My Maryland website: http://www.marylandcampaign150.org/Reenactment.html

A collection of assorted pictures and videos from the weekend:

http://markbryanmakela.photoshelter.com/gallery/In-Progress-Hardcore-Authentics/G0000N_a.qHy.6sc/ 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t5uQp7mrVg 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSRdJTq1R0&feature=youtu.be