Pseudohistorical Re-enactment and Living Revisionist History

[Red_Dawn]

I posted this here because it's a general re-enactment question and not just a pirate question. Feel free to move this thread if I put it in the wrong place.

I've been curious about something for a while, and This Publishing Fiasco had me thinking about it again. Have any of you ever encountered a re-enactor who was also into pseudohistory. Not just some guy who took his history cues from Disney; I'm talking real, agenda-driven, eff-those-hidebound-fools revisionism. Like someone doing the pirate-freemason-templar in all seriousness. Or perhaps a WW2 re-enactor who denies the Holocaust - out of character. How do you handle it? Do most re-enactment groups have rules that prevent such nonsense?

[Mission]

I occasionally get people who think the medicines of the golden age of piracy were better than modern medicines. I just smile and let them talk themselves out. I see no sense in encouraging/antagonizing them, although I could...

"Ooh. Tell me how you think surgery is better without anesthesia!"

Or "What do you think about those recipes that recommend pigeon's blood and water made from boiling "new welpt puppies."

[Brit.Privateer]

I occasionally get people who think the medicines of the golden age of piracy were better than modern medicines. I just smile and let them talk themselves out. I see no sense in encouraging/antagonizing them, although I could...

Cults...Cults everywhere.

Pseudohistory in terms of mixing in cult-like stuff such as freemasons and templars - thanks to cable educational channels - have been popularized in the mainstream. It's the "Jones-Da Vinci" syndrome I would call it. If it can be made to look exciting like something in a Indiana Jones film or Da Vinci Code book, the public will eat it up because it allows people to escape and imagine for just a little bit - plus people are attracted to "oh, history may be different than what they taught in school - but in a cool way!" The odds would say that someone who believes in this kind of stuff will eventually end up reenacting.

The agenda and revisionism stuff - well people like myself in academia encounter that all the time. If it's valid revision, then following the argument and examing the footnotes should demonstrate why it should remain standing. But, if the book is agenda driven and/or written just for the purposes of trying to get something new out nothing, it will eventually fall, like that book about Jefferson that was linked. It's not a new thing by any means. People of diverse beliefs and on both sides of the political spectrum have written stuff that doesn't have a foot in reality. Just got to try and deal with it the best we can and steer people who are willing to learn in the direction of good scholarship.

Trying to yell down the people who believe in this kind of stuff (let alone write it) isn't worth it - I would say that yelling at them for it might be the worst thing you can do because some will convince themselves that such persecution demonstrates that they are right. Just let them get out what they want to say, tell others that are legitimately interested in learning why that position is wrong (preferably when that person isn't around so a fight doesn't start and make everyone feel awkward), and if an actual discussion comes around that involves that person - just try to be respectful as possible and don't get dragged into a passioned argument (for some people just want that - some just want the drama).

For my personal experiences in this, I got plenty of it when I was a Civil War reenactor, and especially when I did my undergrad at Gettysburg College. You can guess what kind of stuff I encountered in those situations. Frequently, those events are large enough that those kind of people can be avoided.

[Guest]

Hey... what about that book "sodomy and the pirate tradition" By Barry R. Burg (1983)

<Never read it tho......>

But it gives "Yo Ho it's a Pirates life for me" a compleatly different meaning...........

[Brit.Privateer]

Hey... what about that book "sodomy and the pirate tradition" By Barry R. Burg (1983)

<Never read it tho......>

But it gives "Yo Ho it's a Pirates life for me" a compleatly different meaning...........

Read it, it really doesn't have solid evidence for what it argues. Some of the evidence he does present is questionable in terms of being valid as sources on this subject and he heavily dips into the literary interpretion of period publications (fictional or in that gray area of factual fiction) for his argument. That is the simplest analysis I can give for that book. It has its roots with all other kinds of pirate myths with the "pirates were free spirits and were rebelling against society and government and doing all this stuff to demonstrate their rebellion." Overall, Burg's writing gave me the impression that he had an agenda of finding evidence for his argument, rather than taking in all evidence in context and making conclusions.

There is minimal evidence for homosexuality in the Royal Navy during the period, let alone pirate society. Reported cases of sodomy in the Royal Navy are so small that even if you multiplied the number of cases by...lets say ten so as to make up for unreported cases, it's still a small fraction of a percent of the greater maritime community. There were less than a dozen court cases for sodomy in the British Navy during the War of Spanish Succession in a navy that was in the 40,000 range at its peak. Also, the courts lumped in relations between two adult men and relations between an adult man and a boy. Once again, I see the issue of people trying to cast 20th and 21st century mindsets onto people of 200-300 years ago. And like so many other things talked about concerning piracy and mythology - we aren't saying it didn't happen, we are saying that it was far away from the norm to the point of being close to an anomoly.

To tie back with the Pseudohistory aspect of the thread, this is kind of an example of it directly related to pirate history. Homosexuality and history has its waves of popularity in academic studies of history and in mainstream trade book history. It's been going on long enough now that many colleges have departments dedicated to its study (well, almost, I'm referring to the variously named gender studies departments that exist out there). It once again apeals to that "I didn't know history was like this, and it's more interesting than those high school text books told me! Its shocking and new, it must be true!" kind of thing I mentioned previously.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

And think on this; these are the same types of people which are going to be teaching and running the country for the next several generations...

Bo

[Mission]

Burg fully admits his book is based on speculation in the Intro. I know this because that was the last sentence I read before tossing it aside. (I find it interesting that even today, in this age of increased acceptance of LGBT individuals in the US that the % of the population who are recognized as such is about 5-8%. I posit that it would have been lower during a time period where such behavior was so reviled, although I have no proof of that.)

I believe there's another book there that I think is more insidious in its clever presentation of a mostly unprovable hypothesis as fact. It's talks about the socialist nature of the societies that pirates created. Darned if I can remember the name of it - it seems to me that it had a title that made it sound like a typical book on pirates. I believe it was much better done than Burg's book from what I heard.

[Fox]

I believe there's another book there that I think is more insidious in its clever presentation of a mostly unprovable hypothesis as fact. It's talks about the socialist nature of the societies that pirates created. Darned if I can remember the name of it - it seems to me that it had a title that made it sound like a typical book on pirates. I believe it was much better done than Burg's book from what I heard.

There are many books that could be covered by that description, some worse than others, but I suspect you're thinking of Villains of all Nations by Marcus Rediker.

Much as I disagree with about 80% of Rediker's conclusions, I do think this is an interesting point worth commenting on, because there is a big gulf between pseudo-history and history-written-from-a-viewpoint-that-differs-from-one's-own. Rediker's work falls firmly into the latter IMHO, as his interpretations are based on solid historical facts rather than speculation and wishful thinking.

For example, pirate pay-scales were fairly simple and quite level, with the captain usually receiving between one and three times the amount received by the rest of the crew (with a couple of notable exceptions). Rediker interprets this as being evidence of progressive thinking of a left-wing nature, by comparing it to Royal Navy pay scales in which a captain could earn more in a day that the lowest members of the crew earned in a month. However, compared to many merchantmen and fishing vessels the pirates' pay-scales are about 'normal', so they were no more progressive or socialist than anyone else of the time in my opinion. See? Rediker's conclusions might be debateable, but they are at least rooted in real history.

Not like that awful pirates and Knights Templar nonsense that we thought would never go away...

[Mission]

There are many books that could be covered by that description, some worse than others, but I suspect you're thinking of Villains of all Nations by Marcus Rediker.

Much as I disagree with about 80% of Rediker's conclusions, I do think this is an interesting point worth commenting on, because there is a big gulf between pseudo-history and history-written-from-a-viewpoint-that-differs-from-one's-own. Rediker's work falls firmly into the latter IMHO, as his interpretations are based on solid historical facts rather than speculation and wishful thinking.

Yes, that is the book I am thinking of. And your points are well taken.

I kept trying to remember the author's name because I was pretty sure it was someone well respected in this field. I actually own it and read it a looooong time ago when I was young and impressionable. You are right that he does a good job explaining his reasoning, but I think he stretches the facts out of shape in getting there. (You know me, though... I am all for arguing with facts. )

The trouble with such books is that they lead to people thinking they were the original socialist societies while often overlooking the more capitalistic bits where they cut people up to get them to reveal their treasure, sold slaves when it was convenient and profitable and spent the money they took like... well, like drunken sailors. (Not to mention the anarchical bits like throwing cargo into the water and burning ships (sometimes) out of spite, torturing prisoners because they didn't like the take and just burning slave ships because taking care of them would be too much trouble.)

You occasionally encounter people who want the pirates to be some sort of mystical apex of ancient socialism here on the Pub. I've never really had someone come up to an event who was dogmatic about that concept in particular, although I've met several people who tell me how pirates were so cool because they were fair-minded and had laws and equally distributed their plunder and so forth. (You can't fault them for that since it is right as far as it goes. At least they're not asking me about the overall governing pirate code as set down by Morgan and Bartholomew. I got one of those last weekend. *sheesh* I can't believe anyone still thinks that's based in fact.)

Of course, I've noticed that several of these folks also refer to pirates as 'the original rock stars.' (Thank you Johnny for giving us that bit of legend and lore.) So I usually don't bother to talk further about the other aspects of pirate society as it seems to me that their over-focus on the warm, fuzzy aspects of pirate governance are a thread in a much larger web of misunderstanding which these folks are comfortable with.

[Jas. Hook]

I just started reading Rediker's Villians of All Nations. It is interesting how he explains piracy as a proletariat struggle against the establishment, a way of getting even against past abuses.

Jas. Hook

[Mission]

Jas, it's been a long time since I read it; I'd be curious what your impression is of it when you finish.

[Red_Dawn]

Or "What do you think about those recipes that recommend pigeon's blood and water made from boiling "new welpt puppies."

I would love to see the look on their faces if you actually did tell them that!

PseudoPseudohistory in terms of mixing in cult-like stuff such as freemasons and templars - thanks to cable educational channels - have been popularized in the mainstream. It's the "Jones-Da Vinci" syndrome I would call it. If it can be made to look exciting like something in a Indiana Jones film or Da Vinci Code book, the public will eat it up because it allows people to escape and imagine for just a little bit - plus people are attracted to "oh, history may be different than what they taught in school - but in a cool way!" The odds would say that someone who believes in this kind of stuff will eventually end up reenacting.

Yeah, I was afraid of that.

For my personal experiences in this, I got plenty of it when I was a Civil War reenactor, and especially when I did my undergrad at Gettysburg College. You can guess what kind of stuff I encountered in those situations. Frequently, those events are large enough that those kind of people can be avoided.

Funnily enough, I first started wondering about revisionist re-enactors when someone on the writers forum who was a Civil War re-enactor bemoaned how "revisionists have written the bulk of the history of the Civil War". He also mentioned some other things that made me wonder if he was of the Poor Innocent South Vs. the Evil North school of thought, but I was too scared to ask.

[HBlackthorne]

Oh I love when people ask me about "The Code as set down by Morgan and Bartholomew", it gives me a chance to play around with how ships articles worked. Well, a least I enjoy it if they are just Disney-fied people instead of Drunken Idiots. It can be kind of fun explaining the difference between what the popular media shows of pirates and what reality probably was. I had [seems I lost them about 3 months back] the ships articles for Morgan and Black Bart so I can actually show them the Codes of both along with a few others I had. That all being said I can get behind the issue with Psedo-History,.... but I enjoy the books that show "History from another viewpoint" like the one I saw that had Jean Laffitte as someone who was trying to stabilize the Bayou area of New Orleans despite the government because he had a love for the area and its people. Did it make him a faultless patriot,..no not really it still allowed for the fact he was a pirate and a bit bloodthirsty,..... basically the book painted him as a hard and tough outlaw who had a decent plan for "his city" and handled it well whose actions also helped New Orleans and the surrounding areas. Wish I could find that book again because it was kind of an interesting read.

[Mission]

Or "What do you think about those recipes that recommend pigeon's blood and water made from boiling "new welpt puppies."

I would love to see the look on their faces if you actually did tell them that!

The reason I don't is because many such folks have an unshakable faith in their belief and will quickly find a way to excuse such things away so they can continue to expound on their central viewpoint. You can't argue with true believers which I why I find it's better to let them talk themselves out. You've no doubt heard GBS's dictum about wrestling with pigs... (Say, if the puppy thing amuses you, check out the medicines page in this month's Surgeon's Journal article on eye surgery. There's a couple of strange ones in there.)

I think the real proof that the natural period cures didn't work aren't the strange ones they tried, though. It's the fact that most surgeons who list prescriptions for important medical issues usually list several very different concoctions for the same problem. If they worked, you'd only need one... maybe two at best. (I usually either pick the first one or the most bizarre one for my articles. It's hard enough to make one abbreviated Latin list of ingredients interesting, let alone five or six of them.)

[HBlackthorne]

Just for giggle Mission I have to ask do you have the "cure for drowning" one anywhere? I used to watch this BBC show called QI [it was hosted by Steven Frye] and one of the questions involved a bellows looking instrument with a small bowl on it and the question was "what was this item used for". Turns out in London in the late 1700s these bellows were all along the Thames and the coastal areas and were used to resuscitate a drowned person by, I kid you not, filling the bowl with tobacco and blowing smoke up the persons rear end. And supposedly once when it was found to be "snake oil" the term "blowing smoke up your bum" became the term for being lied to or being told falsehoods. I did the research and it was a true "medical device". Here is the QI segment,..sadly I cannot find the other stuff,.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeEvP6QCpw8

[Mission]

I can't watch the video because I'm at work, but that is one of Thomas Sydenham's recommended cures. (Sydenham was considered one of the greatest Physicians (not Surgeons) of his time.) I have it in my notes somewhere. I don't believe anyone is religiously espousing it today.

[William Brand]

I occasionally get people who think the medicines of the golden age of piracy were better than modern medicines. I just smile and let them talk themselves out. I see no sense in encouraging/antagonizing them, although I could...

Mercury and leeches. People who think it's better should research the final days of George Washington, or as they should be called, 'The last days, torture and demise of a founding father by foundling physicians. A man at Fort de Chartres explains every excruciating 'cure' and 'remedy' they forced upon poor George.

And just thinking of period dentistry makes my teeth hurt.

[Mission]

William, they are still using leeches in medicine today. Maggots too. (Not so much Mercury.)

[William Brand]

William, they are still using leeches in medicine today. Maggots too. (Not so much Mercury.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denouncing a good leeching, but when I to think of period leeching certain scenes from Black Adder always come to mind.