Real and Fake History: Can it be the Same?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I have never noticed a great difference between approaches to history in Europe and the Americas.

I dare say you probably haven't, as you have never been to America to notice the lay of the land. It's all book study to you, and journalism. At least, you once told me in person that you had never travelled to North America.

I was thinking of situations where historical sites in NA have literally and physically been moved, two, three, four miles, to accomodate new freeways, etc.

One difference between historical sites in the UK and here in North America concerns how the sites are presented. Admittedly, this is based on just a few samples in the UK (and nine provinces and about 35 states) but at Stirling Castle, The Tower of London, York, and Mary Queen of Scots' birthplace, the tours I went on were lead by guides (always middle aged men) who spoke the stories, in costume of course, but mainly the experience was a verbal walking tour, so to speak. Here in NA, I think there is a greater reliance upon a "hands on" approach, with many of the historical parks offering dramatic recreations and activities which the visitors can physically engage in--not that Brebeuf's torture was itself recreated.

I haven't heard yet of any Tolkien/Middle-earth theme park, although possibly the touring movie exhibits of the weapons, costumes, etc, satisfy the urge for movie fans. The conventions, with their costumed banquets, of course, allow us to imagine a Middle earth more concretely.