Conundrum for a Collections Manager

So here's a bit of a provocative topic, just for a change


Those who know me know that I am a trained archaeologist who also enjoys living history. I do quite a bit of it at work, obviously (we do mostly 1920's and pioneer era), but I also do it in my spare time (mostly Viking Age). Sometimes the two overlap. I was also born and raised in a different culture, and so I attend a fair amount of events here that entail people getting dressed up to depict what they think is representative of that culture. I recently attended one of the latter events and came across a woman who was wearing an outfit that was “sort of like” the National Costume of my country of origin, only this woman proudly proclaimed that she'd changed hers to her own liking. I can't even describe the feeling of insult that I felt standing face to face with this woman, who, for all intents and purposes had in a way told me that our carefully designed National treasure, a design that was built on generations of historic, provincially and ethnically specific dress, was not good enough for her to wear in Canada. It’s kind of like if some officer decided to change the Canadian Army “class A” uniform to his liking. If you do that in the military, you get in big trouble. At the same time, I knew exactly what this woman meant. We are, after all, Canadians, and as such we like to show our individuality. We don't have generations of historic anything to build on on this coast (unless you have First Nations heritage, of course – which I will discuss later). This woman had simply done what is OK to do in Canada, but in the meantime, the Swede in me felt deeply offended. That same thing happens at work, and especially at events surrounding the living history group of which I am a member. People who want to join our group actually have to apply to become members and have their costume vetted now. We have a 10 foot rule, i.e. if you are standing 10 feet away from me, you should not be able to find anything on my person that does not look authentically Viking Age. In actuality, it's more like a 5 foot rule for most of us, and for some, it's even less...and then comes the inevitable funny visitor, dressed in a completely non-Viking Age fur vest and loincloth with the standard plastic horned helmet. He thinks he's being funny. He also doesn't know better. I on the other hand can spend 20 hours+ on one garment (each person wears an average of four garments at one time, plus shoes and accessories), carefully carding the wool, spinning it, hand dyeing it, weaving it and hand stitching it together, and I know how much hard work it is to represent my ancestors. I understand he's trying to be funny when he shows up to every event promoting Swedish culture dressed like that, but to me, his behaviour is a slap in the face. It's just plain old disrespectful. Not to me and my friends here in Canada, but to my ancestors, who I do not see as a joke. The same can be said for some of the people who claim to portray Abbotsford pioneers. Some of them would probably have got a kick from seeing the way they're portrayed – most likely laugh at our stupid mistakes - but really, some of those ladies would be appalled at being depicted as ankle-showing, beer swilling, bling-wearing, garter-showing pick-up artists with way too much make-up and hose befitting a prostitute. If we go back to the pioneer era, we get either saloon hookers in fake silk with their chests hanging out, or, alternatively, all the colour disappears out of all the fabric for a very plain, colourless existence of a shaker. Neither one is especially representative of the clothing that Abbotsford pioneer women would have worn. Some of it was very colourful, some of it was highly embellished. It required great skill to make such clothing, and by omitting those skills and that form of creative expression...all that hard work...from our repertoire, we're being a bit glib, aren't we? A bit disrespectful, again. Either way, not very authentic.

At a meeting I recently attended, one of the members spoke on behalf of the First Nations community. A number of us who work with heritage had gathered to discuss our immediate needs, and one of the top ones on his list was the need for authenticity. Now, the First Nations go back thousands of years here in BC. Even though the Norsemen, whose culture I hold so dear, were supposedly the first Europeans to come to North America, not even they go back that far in pre-history (only about 1000 years), and certainly not on this coast. There is plenty of evidence for how the tribes lived, what they wore, what kind of social system they had and so on, and yet when First Nations cultures are displayed here, even on a museum level, half the time we get it wrong. We get basic things wrong, too, like placing teepees in Sto:lo exhibits. “But you have to make it fun” is the defense. Really? You don't think we have fun doing it correctly? Let me tell you something: I wouldn't be doing this for a hobby if it weren't fun. You don't think your culture or your history can be an amazing experience all on its own? I beg to differ. I know you're wrong on that score. History is full of colour, laughter, fun – all of its own, without having to add anachronisms. If you do that sort of thing for a hobby, i.e. if you don't get paid for it, then it's up to you to decide to what length you want to go in trying to recreate something. You may even want to add a bit of spectacle that may be anachronistic just because you feel like it. But if you're on a museum level, then what? What about when people expect to see certain things, because the myth that a given thing existed is so deeply ingrained in our own culture that we cannot imagine an event without it? In my living history group, we use it as an excuse to educate, but a lot of time, as a museum, you can't afford to do that. It takes too long to educate if all you get is 1 minute of face time with a visitor. I mean really afford it, in the economic sense. When my group hosted a dinner for the general public a few years ago, we tried to make it historically accurate fare and we decorated the hall just so etc. And yet it was all wrong. Why? Because if we'd not had some kind of white fluffy bread to serve with dinner, people would have complained that they weren’t fed well for the money, and if we'd have only allowed men to attend, well, we would have been doing something that's illegal in this country, more commonly known as gender discrimination. Oh, and the dinner wasn't cooked by slaves, either...In other words, we would not have been able to meet modern expectations of what a Viking feast was if we'd have done it “to the letter” and “by the book”. Nobody there was really a Viking, so nobody really was offended, but what about if you were a member of an Indian band whose ancestors had developed these amazing structures called pit houses and never spent a day in a Plains Indian style teepee? Would you be offended if you came to a demo of your culture and all the enactors were “living” in teepees? Or wearing Sioux head dresses? Or what about when my friend spends 40 hours on an outfit and then is requested by the event coordinator to wear a plastic horned helmet “so that people can tell she's depicting a Viking”? Or better yet, when a man and his child leave our event because we as Norsemen and -women wear religious symbols which are not Christian, and even mention the Gods and Goddesses that we (would have) believe(d) in – who is wrong then? In the end, that man and his child did not become more educated, so he lost something, and we lost a visitor, i.e. not only money, but a chance to educate.

If some of the people that some groups and museums are supposedly depicting were still alive, some of them would have grounds for a law suit for slander. So do we not have an obligation to them to do them justice, just because they're dead and can no longer file a law suit? Where does one draw the line between fiscally responsible event planning and disrespect towards a culture, an era, a gender and so on? Where is the line between “fun” and “incorrect”?

As you can see, these are all super difficult questions to answer. Some of you readers will for sure say “She takes herself too seriously”. I know that for a fact. Those of us who do historic recreation for a hobby or professionally get to hear it all the time. But then again, I am not sure I answer to you, and therein lies the crux of the problem, does it not? Do I have a responsibility to you, the paying audience, or to those whom I am depicting, and if it's neither/both, then how do you find the right balance?