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

42640RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies

Expand Messages
  • Tom Hurlbut
    Sep 7, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Facial hair.. (sigh!)

      Well, let's remember that this is a hobby and by that I mean most of us
      spend the bulk of our time in "real life". It doesn't mean we don't care,
      just that there are more important things which may dictate whether we are
      strictly appropriate or not.

      For those who make a living at this, like actors or site staff, then it
      might be different.

      I appreciate the discussion, and we should certainly strive for accuracy as
      much as we can, but let's not get silly about this.

      "Major" Tom


      From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of qayanguaq
      Sent: September 7, 2010 6:42 PM
      To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies

      Interesting discussion, if something of a perennial theme.

      My take is that we need the women. Many serve in the ranks without undue
      notice and that is testament to their largely unheralded contribution. To
      those who espouse some purism I suggest this - have a look at the line at
      your next big event. If you are at least 25 yards distant, what sticks out
      as anomalous ? Is it a girl with her hair tucked in, or the guy busting out
      of his belts with excess body mass ? How about the guy who refused to trim
      off his goatee ? Right...that said, there is nothing to be done about the
      "epidemic" of obesity in North America. Let's be concerned with that which
      we can alter - the "epidemic" of period inappropriate facial hair.

      First, a disclaimer - I've been to two events in the last two years, where
      I've failed to remove my moustache. OK on a cavalryman or select varieties
      of Europeans, it's a non-starter for virtually all troop types in N.America.
      I've thought better of it, it's just broadly unacceptable.

      Traditionally, facial hair has been one of those "you have to decide how
      accurate you want to be" items, and somewhat taboo as a "personal issue".
      Thin excuses for taking an important item off the table, I'd say. In the
      last few years I've seen plenty of non-period facial hair at events. Many of
      those examples were on officers - senior members of the clan who should set
      the proper example. Rather egregious, erstwhile leaders!

      I shave for events so as not to suffer ruining my interpretation with facial
      hair unknown in the period. I don't enjoy the process. But no one can
      justify a full beard for 1812 by any stretch (pioneers/sappers and voyageur
      types excepted). The styled goatees I sometimes see are worse yet. They
      clearly signal, "I'm a modern man, and I don't care that much about this".
      Your face is a highly visible aspect of your impression. It is embarrassing
      to your comrades - trust me on that. Inappropriate facial hair will be the
      arbiter of your "period appropriateness" even if all else is near perfect.

      Rant over.....as you were...

      Peter Butrite

      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com> , 12th
      US Infantry <12thinfantry@...> wrote:
      > Vic,
      > > As private re-enactors or members of respected groupings that have
      standards of accuracy, such as the Brigade of the American Revolution, we
      can acheve high standards indeed if we wish.
      > Unfortunately, those standards are only as high as they are enforced. The
      BAR has become a shadow of its former self as it has become lax on enforcing
      its standards due to small turnout at events. When one has an event with a
      handful on a side, they're not necessarily going to turn people away, but it
      creates a downward spiral as doing so ends up also alienating those who had
      been members because they wanted standards. Just the collection of photos
      with modern sunglasses in this online gallery from a recent BAR event shows
      what unenforced standards gives you: http://imaginativeimages.net/id41.html
      > > Sometimes historical realities are distorted deliberately to meet
      current political ideology, however, in site-sponsored "re-enactment' units.
      A glaring example of this was the Fort Henry Guard of Kingston, Ontario.
      This fine unit had some authenticity issues (chromed bayonets, modern hair
      styles, etc) but were a superb drill unit moving toward high levels of
      historical value as a demonstration of 1860s drill and tactics. The NDP
      government of the Province of Ontario, however, forced the introduction of
      women into the Guard, citing gender equality in hiring as the reason. Women
      were introduced into a military presentation seen at close range where they
      never would have been found in 1867 due to limits on women's opportunities.
      Historical accuracy was given up in favour of the standards of the late 20th
      Century---when the standards of the 19th Century were supposedly the purpose
      of the Guard. Should this have happened?
      > Wouldn't allowing men and women to participate but still requiring
      gender-appropriate impressions still be inclusive? Otherwise, shouldn't we
      have men in women's clothing?
      > Cheers,
      > Todd

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic