A comment was made about re-enactors and historical interpreters, asking what’s the difference? Or is there one?
Just my opinion, and those of you who know me, are aware that I usually have “an opinion” and rarely hesitate to express it. And IMHO there is a marked difference in identity and depiction. A historical interpreter works in first person, and bases speech, clothing and mannerisms on a documented personae. A re-enactor depicts the events and the life-style of the past but often compares past and current situations in third person, speaking to the public.
There is also a third category - the actor/entertainer who delights an audience with a sanitized, sometimes error-ridden presentation of history.
I am guilty of trying to point out the difference. There is no right or wrong in any of them, just a difference. The problem that I have come across, is that so many believe everything they see, hear or read, accept it all as historical fact, and become extremely belligerent if told that accuracy is not there.
There is a bit more detail on my web site (www.barbmvd.com) under Discussions: History and Entertainment.