tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post5975442365282204249..comments2024-03-28T08:58:30.675-04:00Comments on Passion for the Past: How Accurate Should We Be When Presenting History?Historical Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04979801752112100293noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post-35272313706413175622015-01-09T17:06:37.117-05:002015-01-09T17:06:37.117-05:00I absolutely cannot believe the response I have re...I absolutely cannot believe the response I have received from this post, and nearly every one positive!<br /><br />Ted: I am in the process of learning "period pronunciations." That's an entirely new level, and very difficult. But I do find it so very important.<br /><br />Alena: There certainly are things we should NOT do for the sake of accuracy. Beating children is definitely one of them (LOL). We must definitely do things as accurately as we can, though definitely within reason.<br /><br />Mary: Though I do agree with the general poor quality of historical mainstream TV, unfortunately it's all we have and, for me, I try to find the accuracies while noting and pointing out the inaccuracies.<br />I will withhold comment on Sons of Liberty until after watching the show.<br />We shall see...<br /><br />Julia: I so agree. If the means are there, then do it right! I continue to watch for three reasons: to see if they 'get it right,' to hopefully right the wrongs through discussions such as my blog or Facebook page, and, well, for hope. I do have hope that one day they will actually finally get it right.<br /><br />Terrie: believe it or not, as a social historian I, too, have had the same questions about "the unspeakable" as you but have not found the answer. <br />Why wouldn't I have the same interest in this situation - - I'm married and would know something about it had my wife and I been living "back then," wouldn't I? I think so.<br /><br />Pvt Sam: If you recall, I dressed as an 1860s woman in morning - totally 100% accurate - and no one can say that what I represented wasn't historically accurate. How can I say that? Because I did not speak, therefore not one person (out of the literally hundreds if not a thousand) people that saw me live and in person knew I was a male. That being the case, I was historically accurate.<br />We have a young lady in the 21st michigan who portrays a soldier as well, and she does such a fine job and is very welcomed in our group because of how well she does. And, yes, she is treated like any other male soldier.<br />And I agree - with so much access to authenticity, how can "The History Channel" get such a simple object wrong?<br />(By the way, if you have not read my posting on my time as a widow, hear it is: http://passionforthepast.blogspot.com/2014/11/my-time-as-1860s-widow.html)<br /><br />Thank you everyone for the wonderful comments! I do appreciate hearing from you!<br />Historical Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04979801752112100293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post-67586255364291887312015-01-09T11:34:38.533-05:002015-01-09T11:34:38.533-05:00I'm a woman that portrays a 1775 British Light...I'm a woman that portrays a 1775 British Light Infantryman, so I'll definitely never be 100% accurate :) And I'm okay with that! Because in general, I try to be as accurate as possible within my means. For example, for work (where I also do living history, just as a woman) I'm finally getting around to making a blue check apron, which the period imagery suggests were the majority of aprons at the time. It's an easy fix, but it makes a big difference.<br />When I'm at an event, we try to show camp life and to explain that due to modern inconveniences, we aren't 100% accurate (we feed anywhere between 30-50 people per event in our kitchen). They appreciate us talking to them, and the history lesson.<br />In the Rev War era of reenacting, we do have the "stitch Nazis"... I've been screamed at by one woman, another reenactor, in public, for being a woman portraying a man. Some people just don't get it. <br />What really kills me is that people doing movies and TV have so much access to the people and materials necessary to get it right, and they don't take advantage of any of it! I will say that I know for a fact that while it's not the most accurate show out there, AMC's TURN is making an attempt. A few members of their crew are reenactors, and know where to go to get certain things. So they're trying.<br />So I guess that I'm a firm believer in accuracy within reason. We will never be 100%, but we can make the best effort based on what we know, what we have access to, and what we can afford.PvtSam75https://www.blogger.com/profile/00304945310687112481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post-71638657959127958732015-01-07T18:43:27.809-05:002015-01-07T18:43:27.809-05:00I enjoyed your insights, and largely agree with yo...I enjoyed your insights, and largely agree with your assessment of The History Channel. When I want accuracy in CONTENT...I look to Ken Burns. To me, that's more important (which would most likely mean that there would be a LOT of history books re-written)<br /><br />My question is always...(being a woman) is are historical re-enactors being 100% accurate to the nth degree???? I'm talking about "that time of the month." or even pregnancy and post-pregnancy.<br /><br />Who know how having to use rags or leaves as "sanitary" products affected their lives? How did they deal with cramps? How did they deal with post pregnancy bleeding or helping the uterus to get back to size?<br /><br />We certainly don't need to look into issues as the use of chamber pots or out houses...but I have ALWAYS been interested how a woman's monthly period affected her life...given the materials she used at the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post-64832444947696057822015-01-04T15:42:34.036-05:002015-01-04T15:42:34.036-05:00I have many expletive deleteds concerning Disney I...I have many expletive deleteds concerning Disney I have lost count. That said, a company with that amount of money should have spent an adequate amount on various experts of the last 40 years of the 18th century. The docents at Williamsburg could definitely show the unhistorical cultural items before they are used so they can be replaced. There is so much dumbing-down now that I scream daily. I have ceased watching television because of the stupidity presented on it -- and the price I have to pay for that stupidity. So, I will listen to the music of the 17th-18th centuries and either read or knit. I do care about accuracy in history.Julia Erganehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613625453621934834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post-86728523638404621892015-01-04T09:09:05.407-05:002015-01-04T09:09:05.407-05:00We can never get to 100% accurate, I am unwilling ...We can never get to 100% accurate, I am unwilling to beat my children for accuracy sake. But in the objects we cary it is not that hard to get the last few centuries right. When presenting to the public we often fall in to the trap of saying: "the average joe will never know" when we feel like compromising, but I think they will be able to tell if something feels out of place, even if they don't know for sure.Alenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05653469207935707496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56451385109293718.post-87766453996503311212015-01-03T12:01:06.877-05:002015-01-03T12:01:06.877-05:00As someone trying to WRITE Civil War period fictio...As someone trying to WRITE Civil War period fiction rather than re-enact history, I have been trying valiantly to avoid anachronism and factual errors, especially in dialogue. If I find myself typing an expression, or even a word, in dialogue, that is used metaphorically, I check to find out whether it was in such use at the time. When I started to have a character refer to another as "Hell on wheels," I checked and found that it was a post-war expression relating to the transcontinental railroad. I also discovered the generally excellent, if bloody, TV series of that name. <br />However, watching it, I found the writers and producers making what were, to me, egregious errors of pronunciation and fact. E.g., the main character said at one point during the War he had blown up a bridge over Monocacy Creek, only he pronounced it MO-no-CA-cy. Later, when a cavalryman was boasting about having stormed across the bridge at Antietam, our hero, who was from Mississippi, said he was in the small force that held up Burnside for much of the day. Of course, the two regiments that held up Burnside were from Georgia, not Mississippi. <br />Then there was the Redford movie about Mary Surratt, only they pronounced her name Surraht. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!TR Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028031990972750620noreply@blogger.com