Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Revlist] Re: Bob Bolton's next impression

Expand Messages
  • Bryan Wise
    Hey David, By CW , I meant Civil War , not Colonial Williamsburg.....sorry about that. Bryan ... From: Woolsey, David To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com Sent:
    Message 1 of 130 , Jun 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey David,
      By "CW", I meant "Civil War", not Colonial Williamsburg.....sorry about that.
      Bryan
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Woolsey, David
      To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:22 AM
      Subject: RE: [Revlist] Re: Bob Bolton's next impression



      Actually, I think the historic reference was a "dodge" to escape the
      authorities, and avoid being forced back into camp at "tattoo"? There
      is zero indication that the soldier dressed like a girl because his
      behavior was similar to a modern cross-dresser. He may have been, but
      not from the scant information in the reference.

      The single fellow whom I saw and apprehended at CW during Under the
      Redcoat, two or three years ago, was trying to sneak about, and had his
      regimental coat tied up under his dress. I doubt somebody portraying a
      cross dresser would do that. He was simply trying to abscond and seeing
      if we caught him. (There was a fellow with simulated smallpox as well
      that year - a very good touch to the event to be sure.) The several
      day's growth did give him away in his dress. I don't recall him ever
      making it to a "tea" and I don't recall tea being served at that event.
      There was the officer's mess, but he was apprehended before that.
      Perhaps the story has been embellished over time?

      Sjt. David Woolsey

      Maryland Loyalist Battalion

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Revlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Revlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Bryan Wise
      Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:43 AM
      To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Revlist] Re: Bob Bolton's next impression

      I had heard about this being done at a CW event, with the men in very
      well made dresses, who did/didn't shave for the social tea or whatever.
      The women at the social (who did a lot of research and work on their
      impressions and clothing) were not amused. Apparently, when shaving
      isn't that big a deal, or cross-dressing was done (cause there are so
      many other worse things to fix) on the female's side of the hobby, it
      didn't go over so well and wasn't deemed as acceptable as it "should be"
      on the male's side of the hobby.
      Hey Bob, I wonder how that would go over with the public, if you and
      your unit all dressed out in women's attire (historically correct in
      construction, etc.) showed up to a big event and talked about your
      period correct clothing and knowledge but also let them know that
      shaving and the issue of cross-dressing isn't really what's important,
      it's your sharing of your knowledge, that is. A little extreme? Maybe,
      but ask some CW reenactors what it turned into, once the concept of
      letting anyone do anything turned out, since it was "just a hobby". I
      dunno, maybe you have the legs for it? :)
      Bryan
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Sherri Rapp
      To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:20 AM
      Subject: [Revlist] Re: Bob Bolton's next impression

      Don,

      Absolutely beautiful! A reference to facial hair *and* non-traditional
      gender roles in one single contemporary document. Too funny!

      Cheers!
      Sherri

      --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      "donhagist" <dhagist@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      "ebolton123" <ebolton123@> wrote:
      > > (Hypothetically) ...I want to participate so badly that I choose to
      don a campfollowers attire...
      >
      > Completely consistent with historical precedent. An orderly book kept
      > by John Faucheraud Grimke (South Carolina Historical and Genealogical
      > Magazine, Vol. XIII, XIV (1912, 1913. Grimke was a brevet Colonel
      > serving as Deputy Adjutant General under Major General Robert Howe
      > (the American General Howe)):
      >
      > February 24, 1779 - "Jos. Grimes a Serjt in the Light Infantry charged
      > with dressing himself like a Girl & being out of Camp after Retreat &
      > Reprimanded at the Head of the Brigade to which he belongs."
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Gregory Theberge
      Bob,   I m done with this conversation.   Greg ... From: ebolton123 Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler s and
      Message 130 of 130 , Jun 30, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob,
         
        I'm done with this conversation.
         
        Greg

        --- On Wed, 6/30/10, ebolton123 <ebolton123@...> wrote:


        From: ebolton123 <ebolton123@...>
        Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler's and Beards))
        To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 8:04 PM


         



        Greg,
        Again ;) ...I thought this was a discussion list? Apparently, only a discussion list as far as it does'nt touch anyones sensitivities...is that what you want? With all of us being reenactors...good luck with that! Perhaps there should be a limit put on a topic regarding the number of responses? OR, a ban on certain "taboo" topics. Let's file them away and just accept the hobby as it is.
        I don't think,I have ever "berated" anyone into anything(?). I do get a lot of support off list regarding my candor and lack of PC, and sarcastic humor, if you will. Maybe that comes across as "berating"? I guess that's why one of my all time military hero's is George C. Patton! :)
        However, I don't think anything is banter that speaks to the progressiveness of the authentic portrayal of what was...not what we choose to make it(?) If certain offenders of authenticity are touched by anything I might say, it is certainly never intended as a direct jab. It's a Catch 22. If you are going to talk about things that we know are wrong, and there are folks doing those things that we ( and even they )know are wrong...then 2+2=4...someone may get "miffed". I have never professed to being the end all of reenacting, and have even admitted on this very list to mistakes I have made. I.E.,The oiled haversack is long gone.
        "...it's pretty evident that these things are wrong. Do we REALLY have to keep talking about them?" I would ask, if it's so evident...WHY should we STILL be talking about them at all? Unless everyone is complacent with the Ren-Faire atmosphere 99% of events have...YES, we should keep open discussions on anything that helps authenticity.
        Cheers,
        Bob Bolton
        Pa. Associators

        --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Theberge <gstheberge@...> wrote:
        >
        > Bob,
        >  
        > I'm really regretting getting involved in this deeper than I already have, but as I am a glutton for punishment, II will give you the courtesy of a reply. To be honest, most of this recent banter on revlist regarding women in ranks, shaving, toilet preferences, flashlights, guys dressing up in drag at events etc. is ridiculous in my opinion (if anyone's into it, that's their prerogative but you're on another frequency channel than I).  Unless you just fell out of the nest, it's pretty evident that these things are wrong. Do we REALLY have to keep talking about them? (except for the primary documentation on soldiers dressing in women, that has some historical merit).
        >  
        > Anyway, I guess my reply to your question would be to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, or those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 
        >  
        > Simply put, to students of material culture, I would say "yes" to your question comparing an oiled haversack to "WIR,Beards, Dining fly's, sleeping bags, flashlights, all of which are HIGHLY visible at any reenactment....really comparible???"
        >
        > If I was to compare these things to a pregnancy, I would probably say that an oiled haversack is comparable to  finding out that you and your husband are once again pregnant after having four kids despite the fact that your husband went through some less than fun surgery six months ago to prevent just this thing from happening again. On the other hand, a dining fly (or the rest of the above) is comparable to being  broke and unwed, your water just broke, you're at the hospital without an insurance card and your boyfriend just ran off with your sister after he dropped you off in the lobby.
        >  
        > In either case, you're still pregnant. One just seems more innocent than the other depending on whose eyes you're looking through.
        >  
        > I probably wouldn't even bother going on with all of this, but since you have the "tendency" to be in the middle of all of these subjects and tend to speak your mind freely about other folks' liefestyles (including their sex) I originally posted what I did. Mind you, I'm not defending any of these inaccuracies, but, if you consider yourself one of the "progressive" movement, (and I applaud that effort more than you realize), part of that philosophy is based on acting within and not trying to berate others into that philosophy.
        >  
        > That being said, enough is enough. If you want to talk documentation on any subject I'm all ears. The only way to improve this hobby is to do the best job you can for YOURSELF and the pards in your immediate organization. There isn't enough time in a day to complain about everything that's bad with the hobby. We already get that.
        >  
        > All of the best and I really look forward to the day you and I meet in the field.
        >  
        > Greg
        >
        > --- On Tue, 6/29/10, ebolton123 <ebolton123@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: ebolton123 <ebolton123@...>
        > Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler's and Beards))
        > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 3:41 PM
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        > Greg,
        > Oiled haversack, (which was barely discernable as being oiled it was so lightly coated), that I admitted I was not professing ANYONE do as authentic, that I only used on immersion non-spectator events, compared to WIR,Beards, Dining fly's, sleeping bags, flashlights, all of which are HIGHLY visible at any reenactment....really comparible???
        > I get your drift though, and yes you are correct. Wrong is wrong, and my presumption that some Militia dude "could" have made a haversack out of oiled cloth (even though a known item) was incorrect on my part.
        > Cheers,
        > Bob
        >
        > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Theberge <gstheberge@> wrote:
        > >
        > > "the 'ole oiled haversack is just never gonna be somthing I'll live down, huh?"
        > > Bob, I've screwed up and changed things more things in the last 32 years than I would like to remember. It's a learning process. That being said, I've learned you have to be careful criticizing others when there are those out there in internet land that may be familiar with the skeleton's that are in your own closet.  :)
        > > Greg 
        > >
        > >
        > > --- On Mon, 6/28/10, ebolton123 <ebolton123@> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: ebolton123 <ebolton123@>
        > > Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler's and Beards))
        > > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 5:16 PM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Matt,
        > >
        > > By your description of her ;) I'd say the trekker bag is the least of her (or your) worries !
        > >
        > > ...yep, yep,yep...the 'ole oiled haversack is just never gonna be somthing I'll live down, huh? :)
        > >
        > > Cheers,
        > >
        > > Bob Bolton
        > >
        > > Pa. Associators
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, matt vincett <mattvincett@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > Ok great then my new bearded girlfreind with short hair can still dress out!!!  (With her trecker bag..??..??)
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > --- On Sat, 6/26/10, ebolton123 <ebolton123@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > From: ebolton123 <ebolton123@>
        > >
        > > > Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler's and Beards))
        > >
        > > > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > > Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 8:30 PM
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >  
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > Greg,
        > >
        > > > ...well I guess I'm put in my place. (?)
        > >
        > > > Cheers,
        > >
        > > > Bob
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Theberge <gstheberge@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > Bob,
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > I'm not saying that anything you mentioned wasn't necessarily true, nor do I necessarilly disagree with any of the points you are bringing up. I basically learned that information in the fifth grade.
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > What I amÃÆ'‚ saying is that there are certain things in this hobby that are worth discussing, and there are other things that, unless you've been in this hobby for a week and a half or are just trying to stir people up, have been discussed to death and are worthless discussing any more.
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > Beards, women in the ranks, come on .... There's got to be something more scholastic to talk about. Time to raise the bar a bit...
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > Then again, we could discuss haversacks again. One man's beard or woman in the ranks is another man's undocumented nifty trekker haversack. It all depends on whose rose colored glasses you're looking through and what you consider "unauthentic"ÃÆ'‚  No?
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > Greg
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > --- On Fri, 6/25/10, ebolton123 <ebolton123@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > From: ebolton123 <ebolton123@>
        > >
        > > > > Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler's and Beards))
        > >
        > > > > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > > > Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 5:32 PM
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > Greg,
        > >
        > > > > Not quite sure what you read that wasn't true? WIR's are NOT easier to detect off the field with the gear, hat, and uniform coat off?
        > >
        > > > > No thanks on the impliments, sir. I have no need to dig any hole in which to cower...I shall stand tall and take it like a man. Historical fact shall be my breastplate! ;)
        > >
        > > > > Cheers,
        > >
        > > > > Bob Bolton
        > >
        > > > > Pa. Associators
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Theberge <gstheberge@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > "Carol,
        > >
        > > > > > Unless you're at different events that I? There are throngs of public roaming through camps before, during, and after battles. Interestingly, it's not in the "battle" where the WIR's stand out the most..but rather about camps when they have their accoutrements off and generally their coats as well, as well as the hat...POOF, clearly a woman in man's clothing. I don't care how "manish" these girls think they look!
        > >
        > > > > > Cheers,
        > >
        > > > > > Bob Bolton
        > >
        > > > > > Pa. Associators"
        > >
        > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > > Bob, I just got a fantastic spade and pick axe/mattocks from Jymme Hoffman if you need to borrow them to help dig that hole of yours any deeper. <G> Too funny. Pick your battles, man...
        > >
        > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > > Greg
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > --- On Thu, 6/24/10, ebolton123 <ebolton123@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > From: ebolton123 <ebolton123@>
        > >
        > > > > > Subject: [Revlist] WIR (was Short Hair (was Re: Butler's and Beards))
        > >
        > > > > > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > > > > Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 7:32 PM
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Carol,
        > >
        > > > > > Unless you're at different events that I? There are throngs of public roaming through camps before, during, and after battles. Interestingly, it's not in the "battle" where the WIR's stand out the most..but rather about camps when they have their accoutrements off and generally their coats as well, as well as the hat...POOF, clearly a woman in man's clothing. I don't care how "manish" these girls think they look!
        > >
        > > > > > Cheers,
        > >
        > > > > > Bob Bolton
        > >
        > > > > > Pa. Associators
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, Carol Kocian <aquazoo@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > I think it was mentioned in "With the British in Philadelphia,"
        > >
        > > > > > > that women were employed to inspect other women going in and out of
        > >
        > > > > > > the camp or secured area. One reason was to be sure any pregnancies
        > >
        > > > > > > were real (not stolen items under a gown) and the other was to be
        > >
        > > > > > > sure they were women, and not a soldier attempting to run away.
        > >
        > > > > > > There's an impression for you, skulking about with a straw hat pulled
        > >
        > > > > > > down and asking for directions.
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > The fact is, though, there are non-combatant (campfollower)
        > >
        > > > > > > roles for men. Also, most encounters between campfollowers and
        > >
        > > > > > > visitors are fairly close. I can't think of anything about camp that
        > >
        > > > > > > the public might want to watch from a distance, whereas a battle has
        > >
        > > > > > > some space between the reenactors and the audience.
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > -Carol
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 7:00 AM, Sherri Rapp wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > Bob,
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > I have actually pondered this situation for some time. If you could
        > >
        > > > > > > > pull off the campfollower impression reasonably well and take the
        > >
        > > > > > > > steps to appear feminine, you are welcome to join in wherever I
        > >
        > > > > > > > happen to be. I can honestly say that. Or, you could simply be a
        > >
        > > > > > > > pensioner in a Highlander unit, so you would have but little gear,
        > >
        > > > > > > > and still wear - ahem - loose clothing. ;-)
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > Cheers!
        > >
        > > > > > > > Sherri
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > Now, I want to participate so badly that I choose to don a
        > >
        > > > > > > > campfollowers attire and I now show up in your camp, standing
        > >
        > > > > > > > around your fire, chatting up your unit, buzzing aroung your
        > >
        > > > > > > > campfollowers (who are all real women), even maybe following your
        > >
        > > > > > > > unit in the field with a bucket of water.
        > >
        > > > > > > >> ....now, really? You can honestly say that would not bug you?
        > >
        > > > > > > >> Food for thought.
        > >
        > > > > > > >> Bob ;)
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >











        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.