Why do colonial recreations remain so popular, despite the obvious lack of popular interest in reading William Bradford, John Winthrop, John Smith, and Cotton Mather? If you have ever been to one of these recreations, what did you like about it? How would Handler and Saxton explain their popularity?
7 thoughts on “Colonial Recreations in Contemporary America”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I remember visiting Plymouth Plantation in elementary school on a class field trip. i remember being amazed with how the plantation was set up, and how all the “actors” really lived like it was the colonial era. I didn’t think of the plantation as a historical narrative, but as entertainment. Thinking back I can now see how the plantation was a tangible experience of history. How it drew people in to experience history rather than simply reading it. These recreations are so popular because it allows people to be an active part of the history, if only for a moment. It is a chance for people to experience life in the colonial era, rather than imagining what life would be like. These recreations can only achieve success if they are authentic in theory. The motives that the actual people had in colonial times are lost, which leaves all of the actions and experiences in the recreation without an emotional side. This does provide an example of the inauthenticity that these recreations endure, but overall the experience provides an opportunity for the patrons to escape their reality for a minute and take in history in an active and engaging way.
Handler and Saxton provide a compelling case for the underlying attractiveness with their theory of a “second conception of authenticity“ where “individuals feel themselves to be in touch both with a ‘real’ world and their ‘real’ selves” (243). While colonial recreations might claim to offer better historical understanding, the authors make a case that people operate such institutions because they are really motivated by a desire to live out a “real” life. The authors discuss that this sense of reality and wholesomeness comes from the narrative aspect of living history. By placing themselves in the midst of a linear, “authentic” historical narrative, re-enactors achieve vicarious (or perhaps, to them, not even vicarious) self-actualization. The authors point out the ridiculousness imbedded in this notion in that the historical “authenticity” of the narrative actors invest themselves in would never have felt “authentic” to the people actually living in the time period. Though we live in the most “authentic” Middlebury in 2013, we can’t think of it as being so since, to us, it simply is.
I have a distinct vivid memory from visiting a living history park in New Hampshire in 2002. I remember walking into the indoor “forest” section of the park and coming across an obese white man sitting in a fold-up chair with crutches at his side. He was wearing an elaborate tasseled shirt and spoke with a dull monotone as he saw us approaching. He spoke in a slow, uneven , “I am a native American. You are settlers in the mid-seventeenth century. Welcome to my forest.”
The authors see a dynamic interplay between the past and the present as central to the popularity of reenactments and ‘living history.’ Handler and Saxton point to the nature of post-modern culture, where individuals realize themselves through acquisition of property and conquest of nature, in an unending process rife with dissatisfaction. Amid the commodification, fabrication, and alienation characteristic of most realms of our everyday experience, individuals attempt to find meaning and identity through purchasing ‘authentic’ experiences. The authors identify ‘living history’ as such an experience, where participating in a coherent historical narrative is seen as implicitly authentic. In contrast, written history is seen as inadequate to capture the subjective element of history, lacking the ability “to know what it felt like.”
I’ve been on field trips to both Old Sturbridge Village and Plymouth Plantation and all I really remember is buying souvenirs, specifically the famous rock candy. Thinking back, that was the one thing people talked about when referencing these sites, the rock candy they bought and ate. So clearly, I think people just treat it as an enhanced park, but instead of mickey mouse, its pilgrims. I totally agree with previous comments in that all I remember was that it was fun, and also strange to see people dressed up these ways, talking these ways and so on. I remember one woman was taking the feathers off of a chicken and it looked gross, and maybe I was too cynical, but I too just tried to make fun of these people or get them to break character. I’ve been to the Salem With Trial museum as well, and felt that was less of a theme park and more of a story, or maybe I was just older in Salem so I understood it more.
In reading the Handler and Saxton piece, he makes some good points but the argument seems sort of dated in today’s world. I feel people are exposed to so many movies and novels and other media, that they don’t really value living history and don’t take it as seriously as it Handler intends it. I’ve been on one of the first person interpretations of museums and indeed they are cool, but its extremely difficult placing yourself in that era’s mindset.
While I agree with Evann and Myles that these colonial recreations do serve as a form of entertainment for many of us, the biggest thing that I took away from all of this was my respect for the people making it all happen. Recreating these monumental symbols of our history not only serves as field trip for elementary school children, but pays tribute to a past that many have failed to remember and care about. In a world where people care more about facebook notifications and twitter followers than the actual people and places who are responsible for where we are today almost makes me sick. I am not saying I am not guilty of this, because I am, and trust me I am not happy about it.
I can make a case for these people and recreations in the best way by relating it to popular culture in a sense. I will watch a movie like Lords of the Rings or Inception and just wish so badly that I could be a live in that world and have it become a reality. These people are the same way but with a different context. The first sentence from Handler and Saxton’s work states, “‘Living history’ has been defined as the ‘simulation of life in another time'”. That is exactly what I want. I probably feel that same way about wishing that I lived in the world of Game of Thrones as does the guy who is trying so hard to repair the Mayflower II. Credit to him, because he is actually trying to make it happen while I am just watching a TV show on netflix.
I grew up in Newton MA, neighboring Lexington/Concord, and also experienced at least a few school/afterschool trips to Plymouth plantation. For whatever reason, when I think back to these trips, the first memory that comes to mind is of discussing the upcoming trip in my elementary school classroom prior to our visit. I remember my teacher explaining that we should not do the stereotypical Indian cry (tapping your hand over your mouth while yelling) when we encountered the Native Americans as part of plantation tour. She explained to us that some of the actors we would see were actually were real Native Americans and would find this offensive. My second grade self didn’t think much of this at the time and probably laughed when a few kids did their Indian whoops anyway and generally spent most of the visit trying to get the people to break character.
Looking back on this, and trying to think how Handler and Saxton would view it, it appears that the “storied or emplotted [lives]” (250) that were presented to us as authentic did not hold up for my peers or my teacher. She did not explain behavioral rules for the benefit the Indians of Plymouth plantation, but for the real Native Americans who had day jobs at Plymouth plantation making dug out canoes and talking to visitors in wigwams. That being said, the field trips were great because we were not trying to experience the authentic, but as Evann wrote, just trying to have a great time in a theme park. I totally agree that the passive entertainment afforded to us by living history easily explains at least one compelling reason why many more people have a good time visiting Plymouth plantation than reading the texts of the of the people the living history is trying to portray.
Growing up in the Lexington/Concord area trips to Plymouth Plantation happened pretty regularly in elementary and middle school. One girl in my class even had a birthday party there, and thinking back that’s pretty strange. Though I was learning about the Pilgrims in class I don’t recall thinking of Plymouth Plantation as anything other than pure entertainment. It was kind of like a theme park, with actors, animals, crafts, and food, and I can see from the website that nothing much has changed. I recall pretty distinctly wanting to work there so I could get away from my homework and just do “fun” things like make clay pots and pick vegtables in the garden. Though I’m sure I learned something, it wasn’t exactly an intellectual experience in the same way that reading a historical account is, but it got all of us excited. In the Handler and Saxton piece they write that these historical reenactments “replicate rather than interpret” and that rang true for me. The fact that I could passively watch the actors and take in my surroundings without having to interpret or do any of the brain work myself turned the experience into true entertainment for me. The act of imagining, even with details and facts, is inherent to historical narratives, and I think that a reenactment takes that onus off of the viewer. The fact that it’s a multi-sensory experience kind of relieves the watcher from any responsibility. I’m really struck by the almost religious following these
reenactments have, and I think Handler and Saxton were arguing that the following has something to do with the authenticity in portraying stories with an ending. We, the watchers, have no idea how our “stories” will end, and when they do end we will become part of history. Handler and Saxton argue that through these historical reenactments, “they expect to gain access to the lives and experiences characterized by the wholeness that historical narratives can provide.” Though I don’t know if I buy into privileging a reenactment over a text, I can see the appeal of taking a trip through a world that has a beginning, middle, and end in history.