Diversity in reenactment units

[tompritchett]

"The all-Black, 332nd Fighter Group consisted originally of four fighter squadrons, the 99th, the 100th, the 301st and the 302nd.
From 1940-1946, some 1,000 Black pilots were trained at Tuskegee.
The Airmen’s success during World War II – not losing a single bomber to enemy fire in more than 200 combat missions – is a record unmatched by any other fighter group. "

To continue this thread:

There was the 969th Field Artillery Battalion which won praise from Gen. Taylor for its fire support in the defense of Bastogne.

In March 1, 1945 2,253 black volunteers completed their training as replacement platoons to be assigned directly to whatever ETO units needed troops. 37 rifle platoons were thus organized and sent into action in what had for the most part been all-white infantry formation.

And then there was the 93rd Infantry Division that saw action in the Pacific theater.

[Rob Weaver]

Ok - let's stray into an area of diversity we haven't covered yet. We've done age, sex, race and ethnic background issues: what about physical and/or mental challenges? What constitutes a reasonable level of accomodation for a reenacting unit?

[wilber6150]

Mentally challanged?
I think that would almost include all of us according to our spouses

[bill watson]

No, it's a point: Intellect ran the gamut from barely functional moron to what we'd call gifted and talented today. Ever read "Black Flower?" Fiction, yeah, but there's a scene where the company idiot blows the head off his file partner.

Not that I'm suggesting we reenact that....

But the fact that we self-select for this hobby out of an interest in history, at some level, means we are not intellectually authentic. Dare I say it? We are probably a cross section at a higher intelligence level than you'd have found in either army. There were men in the ranks who weren't real bright. Put the jokes aside for a minute and think about everyone you've ever fallen in with. How many would you put in that category? Not deranged, or twisted, or whatever; we've all seen folks whose obsession with something would get them committed if there were justice in the universe. I mean "not very bright." I can only think of one, and it was a member of a reenacting family who simply came along because it was the family activity.

I'm not sure we're required to do anything about this observation. But aside from "Private Herd," a homonym, who was mute at McDowell after being kicked by a mule, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone reenact any kind of disability impression.

Just what we need, a call to action for functionally impaired impressions ...

Also underrepresented: men who would not shoot at the enemy. I've run into a rash of descriptions of such recently. Didn't want to die with murder on their souls. One man fired his gun right into the air despite being slapped and slugged by his sergeant. They made him a teamster. Well, now we need a wagon and some mules, RJ is right.

[tompritchett]

what about physical and/or mental challenges? What constitutes a reasonable level of accomodation for a reenacting unit?

IMHO, the real key to this issue falls not so much on the side of authenticity but on the side of safety. If the disability means that this person should not be firing a weapon in ranks, then he (or she) has no business being in ranks. However, that does not mean that this individual has no role in reenacting. Physically handicapped individuals may likely be able to use their handicap to adopt a wounded soldier or wounded civilian impression.

As far as the mental side, there is the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. Again, for both issues it should all boil down to how safe can that person function in the field. Someone who suffering from bipolar disorder, severe depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc, can be quite stable under medications and end up being quite normal and safe both in camp and on the field. However, I would be quite hesitant to allow in camp or on the field someone suffering from paranoia schizophrenia and is not stable under medication.

[flattop32355]

Mentally handicapped is sometimes much easier to spot than mentally ill.

I've had to deal with some individuals in the ranks who were 15 watt bulbs with the dimmer switch turned waaaaaay down. Generally, they figured out quickly that the mental and physical demands were too much for them, and either drifted to the sidelines or out completely.

Mentally ill is a whole 'nother matter. It's commonly said that you need a degree of it to do this crazy hobby, but like any other human endeavor, there's some folks out there who can seem to have the rubber band wound a bit too tightly. The hobby may be their release valve, or it can add to the problem. There's often no way to tell until the band snaps, when the answers all seem obvious in hindsight.

[Rob Weaver]

A number of years ago, we had a member with a number of challenges. I should have sensed a bit of OCD when he waited for me at the registration tent for 4 hours. Then it turned out that because of a physical disability, he had to hold a musket in an odd manner, necessitating a front rank position. Then there were the anxiety attacks. Nevertheless this young private was a very enthusiastic participant at any event that was within an hour of home for him; he was also agoraphobic. He conquered this last one to drive to an event in southwestern VA from his home in central NY state. 13 times he stopped along the way to telephone either his folks or me that he was OK. Beginning his trip home, he stopped and asked directions to "New York." Quite naturally, the natives thought he meant "New York City." And 11 hours later, that's where he ended up. 8 hours after that, he was finally home in upstate central New York State. A little while after that, he decided that reenacting wasn't really good for him.
I share this story because I enjoyed marching with this guy. He was loyal, honest, committed, safe as any beginner and willing to do just about anything. His various challenges didn't come out all at once, but little by little as we were together. The only accomodation we had to make for him was to put him in the front rank and be very reassuring. And make sure he took his meds.

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I think this thread has unraveled into an entirely new ball of yarn. I persist in thinking it implausible that black men would want to re-enact either as confederates or integrate themselves with white "soldiers". The historical record suggests that no black soldiers served the confederacy as soldiers.A black man portraying a confederate isn't authentic, and a black man's desire to "honor" confederate soldiers makes about as much sense historically, intellectually or emotionally, as a contemporary Jew choosing to portray a WW2 German soldier.

Before someone raises the issue of Solomon Perel's WW2 service, let me observe that his "enlistment" was merely a disguise necessary to survival and can not properly be construed as service. Mr. Perel makes it quite clear from everything he's said and written than he abhorred the regime he "served". Using Mr. Perel as an example it would be very strange for a Jewish WW2 re-enactor to justify his desire to portray a German soldier on the premise that "Jews served" in the German army.

I think it requires similar historical gymnastics to justify a black re-enactor portraying a confederate, and certainly misrepresents the nature of 19th century society to suggest that white and black union soldiers fought side by side.

All that said, the re-enactor hobbyist is welcome to portray the period however he wants, and make whatever pragmatic concessions necessary to attract recruits.

Civil War re-enacting is a hobby more interesting to white rather than black men. The majority of men aren't re-enactors, but the majority of the tiny minority that do re-enact are overwhelmingly white, and will most probably remain so, because the Civil War doesn't have the same appeal to black men that it apparently does to white men. Suffice to say, the history of racial slavery in America from the perspective of the enslaved isn't something that engrosses most white men. Our interests are different because our histories have very different perspectives.

Would anyone think it appropriate for a white man to portray a slave? Could a black man look at that portrayal, and feel as though his ancestors were somehow being honored, by someone who is "playing" at slavery. I think such a portrayal would be inappropriate however it was explained, because the depiction is inherently inaccurate.

Putting the shoe on the other foot doesn't legitimize a misleading presentation. I would have no more interest in seeing a black man pretend to be a confederate than I would seeing a white man playing slave.

[8th TexCav]

I

Putting the shoe on the other foot doesn't legitimize a misleading presentation. I would have no more interest in seeing a black man pretend to be a confederate than I would seeing a white man playing slave.

Jim, I really do not care if you have an interest in seeing it or not. There were some in the 8th Texas Cavalry who were not troopers but were slaves that accompanied the unit. Some at times were armed and did fight. That is documented. We do have a gentleman who does ride with us at some events who portrays one of those men. He has done his research and is a curator at one of our larger universities here in Texas. It is historically correct and he chooses to do this to show history as it was, not as the politically correct version we see now. The 8th was not an integrated unit and we do not portray it as one. Were there black slaves that were occasionally armed, yes? Sorry if that offends you.

[hanktrent]

Suffice to say, the history of racial slavery in America from the perspective of the enslaved isn't something that engrosses most white men. Our interests are different because our histories have very different perspectives.

Would anyone think it appropriate for a white man to portray a slave? Could a black man look at that portrayal, and feel as though his ancestors were somehow being honored, by someone who is "playing" at slavery. I think such a portrayal would be inappropriate however it was explained, because the depiction is inherently inaccurate.

Putting the shoe on the other foot doesn't legitimize a misleading presentation. I would have no more interest in seeing a black man pretend to be a confederate than I would seeing a white man playing slave.

Something about that philosophy just doesn't sit right with me. It seems racially devisive, as if only white people care about white people, and only black people care about black people, and we can predict what people will think based on their race.

While it's true in general that basic military reenacting is white-based--obviously, anyone can see that most reenactors are white people--I think the issues run deeper.

There's a difference between what a person can portray for an audience, which is limited by what they look like, and what they can identify with or be interested in. For example, a year or two ago, I thought about putting on a non-spectator underground railroad event, shamelessly cribbed from the living history museum programs that are held at various sites.

They're one or two hour programs, in which all visitors portray runaway slaves, regardless of color, while the museum employees in period clothes portray their roles based on race. The programs are several years old and quite popular. The one I attended in northern Ohio had a racially mixed group pretty reflective of the population as a whole, I'd say.

So yes, I've seen white people portray slaves; I've seen black people do the same alongside them, and no race wars broke out. Everyone cooperated and seemed to get something rewarding from the experience.

However, the museum programs are aimed at non-reenactors of all ages and abilities, and are thus short and physically easy.

My idea was to expand the situation to full scale for two days, over twenty miles, including wading/swimming the "Ohio River" at low water, hiding in caves, etc. It was just too physically demanding to attract participants, so I scrapped the idea.

But here's the point: there were slots for both slave catchers and slaves, and all roles were open to either race, since there were no spectators; the purpose was for the handful of participants to seek their own experience. The white reenactors who expressed interest were overwhelming interested in the slave rolls, and either had no interest in, or felt they would do a poor job, as slave catchers.

I think there's greater complexity in this whole issue than most people think, when one steps outside the classic military reenactment structure and looks at 19th century living history as a whole.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net