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

Re: "reenactors."

Expand Messages
  • NINETY3RD@xxx.xxx
    ... Was that a Freudian slip there Larry? *O*-ppression.....? ;-) B
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 02/12/1999 3:27:21 PM, lalozon@... writes:

      >It was recommended that the lady do the
      >
      >oppression of the commanding officer's
      >
      >wife.

      Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
      *O*-ppression.....?

      ;-)

      B
    • Bateman, Andrew
      Benton Jennings wrote: Was that a Freudian slip there Larry? *O*-ppression.....? ;-) B Andrew writes: Is there an echo in this room?
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Benton Jennings wrote:

        Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
        *O*-ppression.....?

        ;-)

        B

        Andrew writes:

        Is there an echo in this room?
      • NINETY3RD@xxx.xxx
        ... Echo? What Echo? Echo? What Echo? B
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 03/12/1999 8:23:32 AM, abateman@... writes:

          >From: "Bateman, Andrew" <abateman@...>
          >
          >
          >
          >Benton Jennings wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
          >
          >*O*-ppression.....?
          >
          >
          >
          >;-)
          >
          >
          >
          >B
          >
          >
          >
          >Andrew writes:
          >
          >
          >
          >Is there an echo in this room?

          Echo?

          What Echo?

          Echo?

          What Echo?

          B
        • Craig Williams
          -- ... Two. Me and one to hold my penis..MY MOTHER!...MY LADDER!!!
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            --
            >>
            >>
            >>Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
            >>
            >>*O*-ppression.....?
            >>
            >>How many Freudian phyciatrists does it take to change a lightbulb.........





            Two.



            Me and one to hold my penis..MY MOTHER!...MY LADDER!!!
            >>
            >>Oh grin..Craig
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
          • Craig Williams
            Tim, some thoughts on your last missive; for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all who have command positions. You mean sorta like a12
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Tim, some thoughts on your last missive;

              "for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all who have
              command positions. "

              You mean sorta like a12 page safety guide that includes a schedule that is
              distributed to all participants if not by mail before hand, then during
              registration the night before an event?

              "it is a good idea to have the controlling site person in modern clothes so
              that they can interact without looking anachronistic."

              I'm sorry,aren't modern clothes anacronistic?Kidding aside, a site
              representative should be able to be seen in and around the re-enactors and
              not be obvious. This way visitors photos are not ruined, and the ambiance
              can be maintained as much as possible. If it becomes neccessary for a site
              supervisor to step out of character to address a problem, then it is
              incumbent on the re-enactors to assist the site rep in rectifying any
              difficulties. Once the problem has been dealt with then everyone can go
              back
              into character. When I was the safety co-ordinator of the Battle of
              Ridgeway
              the battle designer and myself were able to drift between both sides
              unobtrusively because we dressed as period undertakers. I firmly believe
              that it is up to the discretion of the event co-ordinator what he/she wears
              to their own party (within historical context), without having to bend over
              backwards to accomodate the re-enactors.

              "They could also use the correct uniform and take command",
              If they know how. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who figures
              they can command because they've read A book and spent a little or even a
              lot of money on a swishy bit of schmatta from Whitehall. You know the type.

              "if command is delegated it should only be delegated to a person
              trusted by the site, and that person must be fully briefed."

              Agreed, like at a scheduled meeting prior to the safety meeting which of
              course would be outlined in the safety/schedule handed out before the event.

              "The person appointed to command is (or should be made aware of) who is in
              charge" That would be at the briefing.

              " and that person should have the trust to be able to communicate in a
              period way. In the example you give above the female in charge could drop a
              curtsy, say "If you will pardon me sir, it is of great importance that I
              speak to you in private."
              I certainly hope that her next sentence once cloistered behind closed doors
              is not ,"Your hat is on fire ". This doesn't work in an emergency, Tim.


              "female stalks across the paradeground screaming at the top of her voice at
              the supposed commander of the fort "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
              DOING?!!"

              Depending on what she was yelling about, she may be justified . If the
              re-enactor commander has been supplied with the said documents mentioned
              before, this problem isn't likely to arise,so I thinks it's moot.

              I am in total agreement with you when you say that ,"this is a problem
              that should never happen ", and barring an international conference of
              historical site supervisors holding a summit on "how to be of complete
              service to a re-enactor", I think using a little common (sorry I used the
              "C" word) sense is in order.



              Just a few thoughts...
              Craig

              "God is on the side of the big battalions",Voltaire
              "No foolin'." Craig Williams
            • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
              Dear Craig, Obviously we are on the same page. A few other thoughts on your post though.
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 4, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Craig,

                Obviously we are on the same page. A few other thoughts on your post though.

                <<"for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all who have
                command positions. "

                You mean sorta like a12 page safety guide that includes a schedule that is
                distributed to all participants if not by mail before hand, then during
                registration the night before an event?>>

                No, I mean that if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time
                while being allowed at others this should be spelled out at the pre event
                meeting, not assumed that the non park person in charge happens to be fully
                conversant with the variations in the rules.

                <<"it is a good idea to have the controlling site person in modern clothes so
                that they can interact without looking anachronistic."

                I'm sorry,aren't modern clothes anacronistic?Kidding aside, a site
                representative should be able to be seen in and around the re-enactors and
                not be obvious. This way visitors photos are not ruined, and the ambiance
                can be maintained as much as possible. If it becomes neccessary for a site
                supervisor to step out of character to address a problem, then it is
                incumbent on the re-enactors to assist the site rep in rectifying any
                difficulties.>>

                No, I mean that in an emergency someone in modern dress can jump in and do
                what they like without affecting the first person interactions. For any
                member of the public who sees someone other than supposed commander (private,
                washerwoman etc.) obviously exercising command at a crucial time the
                'theatrical' illusion is gone fore the weekend. As members of the public know
                in which age they live a 'modern' person would not have this effect.
                It is like having a problem at the theater, Its one thing to have the manager
                walk on stage and correct a problem after which the action of the play can go
                on. It would somewhat spoil the effect to have a member of the cast do it.
                Its the difference between being performer or 'front of house'.

                I think in this same context if park people choose to dress up the 'how' they
                go in and out of character is very important. Their attitude in this will
                very much determine the amount of co-operation they get. You catch more fly's
                with honey than vinegar.

                <>

                Quite, the problem is usually not what anyone wears but how they behave while
                wearing it.

                <<the female in charge could drop a
                curtsy, say "If you will pardon me sir, it is of great importance that I
                speak to you in private."
                I certainly hope that her next sentence once cloistered behind closed doors
                is not ,"Your hat is on fire ". This doesn't work in an emergency, Tim.>>

                That depends on the emergency, There are many period ways of getting
                someone's attention but if of course we are speaking of a risk to life and
                limb then all bets are off. If on the other hand it is a breech of park rule
                that someone was not informed of I think the belligerent attitude it
                inexcusable. (A particular incident at Chalmette comes to mind).

                I think part of the large problem here, particularly for battles, comes from
                sites where individuals do not (and do not have the skill to) command on the
                field but want to dictate how the minutia if the battle should go. I have
                always though that we who are in 'harms way' should control the action
                because it is literally our backsides that are out there. The few bad
                incident arise when (as the Chalmette incident of many years ago) someone
                takes the attitude that 'this is MY site and you will do what I say whenever
                I say it and if you break a rule, even if I haven't bothered to tell you
                about it, I am hauling you on the carpet in front of everybody'.

                PS That particular 'lady' is no longer at Chalmette.

                Cheers

                Tim
              • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                As it got sniped in my original reply somehow Craig wrote:- I firmly believe that it is up to the discretion of the event co-ordinator what he/she wears to
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 4, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  As it got sniped in my original reply somehow

                  Craig wrote:-

                  I firmly believe
                  that it is up to the discretion of the event co-ordinator what he/she wears
                  to their own party (within historical context), without having to bend over
                  backwards to accomodate the re-enactors.

                  I replied:-

                  Quite, the problem is usually not what anyone wears but how they behave while
                  wearing it.

                  Cheers

                  Tim
                • Craig Williams
                  Tim, in response Obviously we are on the same page. Nope. if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time while being allowed at others this
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 8, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tim, in response

                    "Obviously we are on the same page. "

                    Nope.

                    "if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time while being
                    allowed at others this should be spelled out at the pre event meeting, not
                    assumed that the non park person in charge happens to be fully conversant
                    with the variations in the rules."
                    Tim this is what a schedule is for, any major deviation should be cleared,
                    no exceptions.
                    >
                    ><<"it is a good idea to have the controlling site person in modern clothes
                    so
                    >that they can interact without looking anachronistic."
                    >
                    >I'm sorry,aren't modern clothes anacronistic?Kidding aside, a site
                    >representative should be able to be seen in and around the re-enactors and
                    >not be obvious. This way visitors photos are not ruined, and the ambiance
                    >can be maintained as much as possible. If it becomes neccessary for a site
                    >supervisor to step out of character to address a problem, then it is
                    >incumbent on the re-enactors to assist the site rep in rectifying any
                    >difficulties.>>
                    >
                    >No, I mean that in an emergency someone in modern dress can jump in and do
                    >what they like without affecting the first person interactions. For any
                    >member of the public who sees someone other than supposed commander
                    (private,
                    >washerwoman etc.) obviously exercising command at a crucial time the
                    >'theatrical' illusion is gone fore the weekend. As members of the public
                    know
                    >in which age they live a 'modern' person would not have this effect.
                    >It is like having a problem at the theater, Its one thing to have the
                    manager
                    >walk on stage and correct a problem after which the action of the play can
                    go
                    >on. It would somewhat spoil the effect to have a member of the cast do it.
                    >Its the difference between being performer or 'front of house'.
                    >
                    >I think in this same context if park people choose to dress up the 'how'
                    they
                    >go in and out of character is very important. Their attitude in this will
                    >very much determine the amount of co-operation they get. You catch more
                    fly's
                    >with honey than vinegar.
                    >
                    ><>
                    >
                    >Quite, the problem is usually not what anyone wears but how they behave
                    while
                    >wearing it.
                    >
                    ><<the female in charge could drop a
                    >curtsy, say "If you will pardon me sir, it is of great importance that I
                    >speak to you in private."
                    >I certainly hope that her next sentence once cloistered behind closed doors
                    >is not ,"Your hat is on fire ". This doesn't work in an emergency, Tim.>>
                    >
                    >That depends on the emergency, There are many period ways of getting
                    >someone's attention but if of course we are speaking of a risk to life and
                    >limb then all bets are off. If on the other hand it is a breech of park
                    rule
                    >that someone was not informed of I think the belligerent attitude it
                    >inexcusable. (A particular incident at Chalmette comes to mind).
                    >
                    >I think part of the large problem here, particularly for battles, comes
                    from
                    >sites where individuals do not (and do not have the skill to) command on
                    the
                    >field but want to dictate how the minutia if the battle should go. I have
                    >always though that we who are in 'harms way' should control the action
                    >because it is literally our backsides that are out there. The few bad
                    >incident arise when (as the Chalmette incident of many years ago) someone
                    >takes the attitude that 'this is MY site and you will do what I say
                    whenever
                    >I say it and if you break a rule, even if I haven't bothered to tell you
                    >about it, I am hauling you on the carpet in front of everybody'.
                    >
                    >PS That particular 'lady' is no longer at Chalmette.
                    >
                    >Cheers
                    >
                    >Tim
                    >
                    >>The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
                    square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
                    square miles...
                  • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                    In a message dated 12/8/1999 9:53:37 PM Central Standard Time, sgtwarnr@idirect.ca writes:
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 12/8/1999 9:53:37 PM Central Standard Time,
                      sgtwarnr@... writes:

                      << Tim, in response

                      "Obviously we are on the same page. "

                      Nope.

                      "if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time while being
                      allowed at others this should be spelled out at the pre event meeting, not
                      assumed that the non park person in charge happens to be fully conversant
                      with the variations in the rules."
                      Tim this is what a schedule is for, any major deviation should be cleared,
                      no exceptions. >>

                      Er. Craig?
                      First you say 'Nope' meaning I assume we are NOT on the same page and then
                      make the statement above which seemingly agrees with what I have said.

                      I can see one potentially large difference in interpretation here in that one
                      could take your statement to read that any and all actions anticipated must
                      be cleared at a pre-event meeting. However you implication is that the entire
                      responsibility is on the re-enactment commander. If he is not aware of the
                      site rules, and the site neglects to inform him off the rules, it is still
                      his fault if he breaks them because it "should be cleared".


                      Leaving aside that I have NEVER attended a meeting where any site has gone
                      into anything like that detail I would say that there are two problems here.

                      1, It is impossible to think of all the eventualities that can happen in a
                      re-enactment or 1st person scenario in front of the public so there must be
                      some flexibility. Your statement about 'checking deviations' beforehand
                      assumes that an unplanned action is known to be a deviation from the rules
                      and can be anticipated. If it could be anticipated it would not be unplanned
                      (catch 22).

                      2, It is the SITES responsibility to state very clearly and unequivocally
                      what the no-no's are before the event. If the person is not given the
                      information he can hardly be expected to abide by the rules.

                      It is foolish for the site to make assumptions about what someone who does
                      not work there may or may not know about the rules. If the site were to
                      follow up their non decimation of such information by publicly chastising an
                      individual problems will ensue. Particularly if no danger is inherent in the
                      action.

                      I am glad that we are on the same page with the rest of (and indeed the bulk
                      of) my post.

                      Cheers

                      Tim
                    • David_Webb@xxx.xx.xx
                      This is a very interesting discussion, and while a conference is not needed, it might be useful for reenactors and site managers to get together to exchange
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        This is a very interesting discussion, and while a conference is not needed, it
                        might be useful for reenactors and site managers to get together to exchange
                        views on safety, direction and communication at events.
                        I think that for big events, one should try to have emergency staff in modern
                        clothing, identified. We hire, for a ridiculously tiny honorarium, St John's
                        ambulance. We also have crowd control staff in modern dress, on the lines, and
                        an emergency plan. Our key first aider has a walkie-talky so that they know
                        what is going on in the battle, and a cell phone so they can call 911 if an
                        emergency is requiered.
                        Site staff in period costume are on the field also, and they are there to
                        ensure safety, but also to help unit commanders with communications, etc. If
                        the site does not have a person or people on the field for a demonstration, then
                        things can go wrong, and even get dangerous, and usually the site person then
                        has the option of going out in modern dress to shut things down, or have some
                        sort of tissy fit in public, or just ignore dangerous stuff.
                        I was a safety officer at a 7 Years War Event at Louisbourg this year. The
                        safety officers wore armbands, attended meetings, and were on the field with the
                        staff during the battles. This worked out very well, since we could discuss
                        things before they went wrong. For example, the Brit commander and I together
                        decided how close we could safely move troops on a flank nearest the crowd. The
                        site ropelines were no longer relevant because of a strong wind blowing from us
                        onto the crowd, and we had to respond to this wind change to avoid flashing or
                        smoking out the audience. With an unobtrusive walkie talky, the opposing
                        commanders could cue phases of the planned scenerio, and even communicate if
                        they chose.
                        We had one safety problem. A planned failed assault went wrong when one
                        participant did not die, but chose to attack the Fortress of Louisbourg and its
                        French defenders single handed. I guess the bushido code lives on in New
                        England. The difficulty was compounded when two Frenchmen obligingly shot him
                        at point blank range. A safety officer was there and tried to stop this silly
                        and dangerous charge, and also to deal with the two idjits who really made
                        things worse by firing at this guy. Since he was on the field in kit, this
                        problem was dealt with, and the battle was not interupted. With no one on the
                        field, a site person might have gone out in modern clothes to shut things down.
                        What was good about this episode was that the 3 stooges were identified, and the
                        site worked with the event and unit commanders to deal with the problem, and the
                        unit commanders took appropriate disciplinary action. With no costumed staff
                        on the field, a battle between the site and the unit or field commanders would
                        very possibly resulted.
                        At the same event, there were some site guard units who really were not very
                        experienced in tactical demos. They actually frightened some of the reenactors,
                        and instead of banning the guard units, or having participants walk from the
                        event, safety officers were placed to monitor and advise the guard units as
                        their sole responsibility. This was done tactfully, and everyone was happy and
                        got to participate.
                        Finally, we had an unfortunate artillery commander who had his foot run over
                        by one of his 6 pounder guns. His group, and all the participants left the
                        field, and no one noticed his problem. I was on site as a safety person, and
                        because I was in kit, I was near enough to see that he was in distress. I was
                        able to get help, and save his nice officers boot by getting it off before his
                        foot became too swollen. With no one on the field in kit, it might have been
                        some time before he was noticed. I really do think it is useful to have staff
                        in period costume on the field, especially in big battles.
                        While reenactors and site managers all share responsibility and liability at
                        events, the host organization as property owner usually gets sued as the
                        primary target. As an employee or agent for Parks Canada, I am aware that the
                        deep pockets of my employer are on the line. So are the historic programmes at
                        Parks and Sites across Canada, and many could close down or be suspended if we
                        have a bad accident that frightens senior administrators and politicians. This
                        would also lead to stricter rules ( such as no opposed sides tacticals) and some
                        other organisations might follow our lead. Finally, in event of a bad
                        accident, especially involving negligence, it is only the site staff and
                        managers that will lose their jobs and blight their careers. Federal, State, or
                        Provincial labour laws usually apply, and criminal charges can result for
                        participants and hosts alike.
                        A number of reenactors ( or living historians, as opposed to dead ones) have
                        jobs in film, or as exotic dancers, or whatever, and could also be in a
                        difficult employment situation if they were directly involved in an event
                        accident. But it is the event safety officer at most historic sites, and the
                        site manager, whose jobs are really on the line. If my paycheck is on the line,
                        I get to call the shots at my site, and this includes deciding on hosting an
                        event or not. I do have a veto. I really must communicate with, work with, and
                        listen to the event participants, and especially the commanders, and treat them
                        with respect, and hope that my trust in them will be justified. If there is an
                        accident, all parties loose , all of us have liabilities and responsibilites,
                        and so all of us have the authority to act to stop dangerous activity.
                      • Craig Williams
                        David,. Bravo and well said! Craig
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David,.
                          Bravo and well said!
                          Craig
                        • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                          Good points all Dave, I suppose we can expect the odd loon in the ranks and certainly it behooves all officers and NOC s to watch out for these individuals and
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Good points all Dave, I suppose we can expect the odd loon in the ranks and
                            certainly it behooves all officers and NOC's to watch out for these
                            individuals and quell the spirit of 'bushido' or anything else contrary to
                            regulations and safety.
                            At Mississenewa this year I ordered all muskets checked for their half cock
                            with the rule that no muskets which did not have a working half cock were to
                            be allowed on the field whether or not they have a hammerstall attached
                            (everyone I am sure knows my opinion of THAT bit of frippery). No less than 3
                            muskets failed the test!

                            This is something I shall continue to enforce I can assure you.

                            Cheers

                            Tim
                          • Kevin Windsor
                            Dave. I have to wholeheartedly agree with what you said! I was at Louisbourg and I had an interesting position. I was doing a postgrad in Heritage
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 11, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dave. I have to wholeheartedly agree with what you said! I was at
                              Louisbourg and I had an interesting position. I was doing a postgrad in
                              Heritage Preservation and part of my job that weekend was to evaluate you!
                              (not you specifically but the safety officers and other staff) I felt that
                              all of the staff did an outstanding job!! I witnessed the single man
                              storming the fort and the only reaction I got from the crowd was "hey look
                              at that stupid guy!" I feel that if you were wearing modern clothes and
                              ran out on to the field and chewed him out then the whole battle would have
                              been ruined. The walkie talkies were also not very noticable except for
                              one man and when a visitor questioned me about it I informed her that he
                              was probably a safety officer making sure no one did anything stupid. This
                              seemed very reasonable for her. I also had a chance to speak with some of
                              the re-enactors that were there and they were glad that the young pretty
                              boys had some extra people watching them. That made them feel safer! I
                              must admit that I have not been following this a closely as I should but as
                              a person who helps put on events I know it is my job on the line and since
                              I get paid for doing something I love I don't want to loose that so you are
                              right! Anything that will keep it safe and make sure I or my site doesn't
                              get sued I will do. Be that having uniformed safety officers or
                              plainclothes or modern dressed people or as at Louisbourg both doing
                              different things. With uniformed on the field and modern off with the
                              public (although when the public started buying and wearing those t-shirts
                              it got hard to tell the difference) If the public sees someone who looks
                              like they know what they are doing then they will go and see them. If they
                              loose a child or something like that then they don't want to spend hours
                              looking for an officer because all they see are people in red coats because
                              they are panicking. I feel that both are really needed! Some for public
                              and some for re-enactors each working together.

                              These are only my two coins thrown in the fountain though!
                              Kevin
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.