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

Interpreting Anomolies

Expand Messages
  • ronpontiac
    In efforts to inform the public, inspire interest in our past, capture imaginations etc there is nothing like a reenactment. Great efforts are taken to ensure
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      In efforts to inform the public, inspire interest in our past, capture imaginations etc there is nothing like a reenactment.

      Great efforts are taken to ensure accuracy in uniforms and accoutrements. Of course various anomolies to strict accuracy in presentation are unavoidable. Dozens reenact the activities of historic hundreds or thousands, ladies hold high tea near the battlefield, safety precautions (like non useage of ramrods) are taken, etc. Still the public are treated to something dramatic, entertaining and highly educational.

      However, care must be taken to avoid misinformation. The ladies can camp out and have their teas etc but should point out to the public that soldiers did not bring their families on campaigns and things like tea might have been held in communities in which garrisons were stationed but not near the fields of battle. Narrators should explain that muskets were rammed but the reenactors are not doing so as a safety precaution, that the reenactors are representing an historic action, not replicating it soldier for soldier, etc

      I write this after reading an article on a Fenian Raid reenactment in the Autumn edition of the Escarpment News, a local publication. This reenactment at Fort Erie includes women in the ranks, the same thing seen in reenactments from other time periods. However, someone screwed up in the information given to the reporter writing the story.
      The article states: " women fought in 19th century battles, sometimes disguised as males."

      While we do know that some women fought in 19th century wars, all were disguised as males. Nobody knew they were women until they were wounded and it was the missing parts not through enemy action that gave them away. They must have been some lookers!

      Women who are reenacting the roles of soldiers should inform their audience that women did not join the army in 1812 but that they enjoy reenacting the role of an 1812 soldier and are portraying a man from that period, not a woman in drag.

      Ron
    • Victor Suthren
      An important point. Accuracy in re-enacting, a far as can be reasonably achieved, is always important for both the re-enactor and the audience, whether that
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        An important point. Accuracy in re-enacting, a far as can be reasonably achieved, is always important for both the re-enactor and the audience, whether that audience is another re-enactor, or the watching public. We want them to come away with a bit of the feel and 'truth' of the past, even as we have fun.

        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. 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?

        Vic Suthren


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: ronpontiac
        To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 11:10 PM
        Subject: 1812 Interpreting Anomolies



        In efforts to inform the public, inspire interest in our past, capture imaginations etc there is nothing like a reenactment.

        Great efforts are taken to ensure accuracy in uniforms and accoutrements. Of course various anomolies to strict accuracy in presentation are unavoidable. Dozens reenact the activities of historic hundreds or thousands, ladies hold high tea near the battlefield, safety precautions (like non useage of ramrods) are taken, etc. Still the public are treated to something dramatic, entertaining and highly educational.

        However, care must be taken to avoid misinformation. The ladies can camp out and have their teas etc but should point out to the public that soldiers did not bring their families on campaigns and things like tea might have been held in communities in which garrisons were stationed but not near the fields of battle. Narrators should explain that muskets were rammed but the reenactors are not doing so as a safety precaution, that the reenactors are representing an historic action, not replicating it soldier for soldier, etc

        I write this after reading an article on a Fenian Raid reenactment in the Autumn edition of the Escarpment News, a local publication. This reenactment at Fort Erie includes women in the ranks, the same thing seen in reenactments from other time periods. However, someone screwed up in the information given to the reporter writing the story.
        The article states: " women fought in 19th century battles, sometimes disguised as males."

        While we do know that some women fought in 19th century wars, all were disguised as males. Nobody knew they were women until they were wounded and it was the missing parts not through enemy action that gave them away. They must have been some lookers!

        Women who are reenacting the roles of soldiers should inform their audience that women did not join the army in 1812 but that they enjoy reenacting the role of an 1812 soldier and are portraying a man from that period, not a woman in drag.

        Ron





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Soo
        Ron, You have raised some very good points. I really think that women can add to the re-enactments, but we have to rethink our roles. While I have been guilty
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Ron,

          You have raised some very good points.

          I really think that women can add to the re-enactments, but we have to rethink our roles. While I have been guilty of cross dressing <VBG> and serving on a gun crew, I also enjoy talking with the public as a female and sticking pins in the balloons of those who think all camp followers where harlots.

          Separate activities such as teas for the ladies are a good way of net working, but should be explained.

          For instance: at the last re-enactment in Gananoque, I was asked by the GLI to do the cooking for them. Working with the scenerio, I explained to the public that the GLI did not take their women with them. I was a tavern keeper in Gan, and the soldiers were billeted nearby and I had been engaged to provide meals, while the soldiers recruited and trained the local sedentary militia. I asked that the public use their imagination and see my wall tent and kitchen as "the tavern".

          I am also attempting to organize a group of civilian re-enactors to portray the civilians during the War of 1812. With Dianne Graves kind permission, we are calling ourselves "Civilians in the Midst of Alarums". The idea is to give an alternative to those who do not wish to do a military impression - or to those who wish to stay in the hobby, but no longer to participate in battles.
          However, we do wish to keep a high standard of interpretation in the matters of accurate history, dress, etc. Since the majority of civilians were NOT "upper" class, we need people happy to portray settlers/farmers, labourers, etc. We don't wish to be the "dress-up" people! Frankly, rankers wives swanning around camp in evening gowns makes me crazy! LOL
          We would hope to have a separate area away from the military which could be designated as the civilian village/town du jour.

          Whoops! Time to get off my soap box.

          We are based in eastern Ontario at the moment and in dire need of numbers to be able to be registered with the NFA at reasonable rates.
          So......if anyone is interested, please contact me off list.

          Sue Too

          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "ronpontiac" <ronaldjdale@...> wrote:
          >
          > In efforts to inform the public, inspire interest in our past, capture imaginations etc there is nothing like a reenactment.
          >
          > Great efforts are taken to ensure accuracy in uniforms and accoutrements. Of course various anomolies to strict accuracy in presentation are unavoidable. Dozens reenact the activities of historic hundreds or thousands, ladies hold high tea near the battlefield, safety precautions (like non useage of ramrods) are taken, etc. Still the public are treated to something dramatic, entertaining and highly educational.
          >
          > However, care must be taken to avoid misinformation. The ladies can camp out and have their teas etc but should point out to the public that soldiers did not bring their families on campaigns and things like tea might have been held in communities in which garrisons were stationed but not near the fields of battle. Narrators should explain that muskets were rammed but the reenactors are not doing so as a safety precaution, that the reenactors are representing an historic action, not replicating it soldier for soldier, etc
          >
          > I write this after reading an article on a Fenian Raid reenactment in the Autumn edition of the Escarpment News, a local publication. This reenactment at Fort Erie includes women in the ranks, the same thing seen in reenactments from other time periods. However, someone screwed up in the information given to the reporter writing the story.
          > The article states: " women fought in 19th century battles, sometimes disguised as males."
          >
          > While we do know that some women fought in 19th century wars, all were disguised as males. Nobody knew they were women until they were wounded and it was the missing parts not through enemy action that gave them away. They must have been some lookers!
          >
          > Women who are reenacting the roles of soldiers should inform their audience that women did not join the army in 1812 but that they enjoy reenacting the role of an 1812 soldier and are portraying a man from that period, not a woman in drag.
          >
          > Ron
          >
        • annbwass@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:18:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, saultcitysoo@yahoo.ca writes: Separate activities such as teas for the ladies are a good way of
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:18:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
            saultcitysoo@... writes:

            Separate activities such as teas for the ladies are a good way of net
            working, but should be explained.
            Even IF one accepted the scenario that the "ladies" were at home, not out
            in the field, afternoon tea as a social event was not known during this
            period. However, I'm slowly having to concede this one--seems like EVERYBODY
            wants to do it!

            Ann Wass


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • annbwass@aol.com
            In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:18:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, saultcitysoo@yahoo.ca writes: However, we do wish to keep a high standard of interpretation in
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:18:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              saultcitysoo@... writes:

              However, we do wish to keep a high standard of interpretation in the
              matters of accurate history, dress, etc. Since the majority of civilians were
              NOT "upper" class, we need people happy to portray settlers/farmers,
              labourers, etc.
              L love to dress up in fancy clothes as much as anybody, but I did a season
              as a washer woman at Fort McHenry, in Baltimore, once upon a time. I have
              to say that, of all the interpretation I've done, I think that was the most
              worthwhile for giving visitors a glimpse of just how very different life
              was 200 years ago.

              Ann Wass


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • aa
              A number of woman were successful in the military. If interested a good book is. Woman Sailors & Sailors Woman by David Cordingly As a leader of a small group
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                A number of woman were successful in the military.
                If interested a good book is.
                Woman Sailors & Sailors Woman by David Cordingly
                As a leader of a small group of re-enactors; I am glad that woman make up a part of the group.
                I agree that at this time period it was a man's world. The public should be informed that woman were on the field and in our boats fighting for King and Country.

                LT. Andre Reed
                H.M.S. Charwell gun crew

                --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, annbwass@... wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:18:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                > saultcitysoo@... writes:
                >
                > Separate activities such as teas for the ladies are a good way of net
                > working, but should be explained.
                > Even IF one accepted the scenario that the "ladies" were at home, not out
                > in the field, afternoon tea as a social event was not known during this
                > period. However, I'm slowly having to concede this one--seems like EVERYBODY
                > wants to do it!
                >
                > Ann Wass
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Ray Hobbs
                List: I will not enter the minefield of the role of women as soldiers in 1812 reenacting, but I would like to pick up on Ron s illustration of the
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  List:
                  I will not enter the minefield of the role of women as soldiers in 1812
                  reenacting, but I would like to pick up on Ron's illustration of the
                  misunderstanding by the press at events.

                  A few years ago, when In Wales, Jon Latimer and I were interviewed by
                  the local newspaper in Cardiff about the War of 1812. The reporter was
                  young, and rather ignorant. She was however alarmed that the White
                  House was a target of British soldiers, and excited that the 41st,
                  later the Welsh Regt., was involved in the War.
                  How she came up with her conclusions I do not know, but the headline of
                  her article, and the gist of her opening paragraph was "Welsh Troops to
                  Burn the White House". But she did spell our names correctly.
                  I still do not know if I am on the "no-fly" list :-)
                  Ray Hobbs
                • petemonahan
                  In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Victor Suthren wrote: An important point. Accuracy in re-enacting, a far as can be reasonably achieved, is
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Suthren" <suthren@...> wrote:

                    "An important point. Accuracy in re-enacting, a far as can be reasonably achieved, is always important for both the re-enactor and the audience...

                    Sometimes historical realities are distorted deliberately to meet current political ideology... 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.... Should this have happened?"


                    As no one else has belled this cat yet, I'll jump in here to do so. It seems to me that Vic's question conflates two issues, so my answer has two parts.

                    First: yes, the Fort Henry Guard should have been made to hire women, just as the guard at the Halifax Citadel should have,and did,hire African-Canadians who applied for that job. Agreed, the original units didn't have such members, barring the occasional 'ethnic oddity' or woman in drag. But we are NOT those units, nor do we live in 1812, 1860 or even 1916, when Black Canadians were relegated to non-combat roles in the CEF and women didn't vote!

                    Much as it may offend my sense of historical propriety, I would be mad as hell to discover that my child, or a neighbour's child coudln't apply for a taxpayer funded job for which she or he was otherwise perfectly qualified because 'it doesn't look right'! Unless of course there were such a surfeit of employment that the person, leaving aside the assault on his/her human rights and dignity, could go get another job of equal pay and quality. Or are girls not allowed to be fascinated by soldiering, 'dress-uop' and drill too?

                    Second, as has been pointed out, we are play acting. However educational and worthy our motives, we do it because it's fun and nobody is really, at the end of the day, under any real illusions about how real it is. None of us will be flogged, shot for cowardice or die of dysentry. Nor are any of the hard core authenticity types I know offering to give up modern medicine, running water or automobiles. Many won't even sacrifice modern specs to the impression!

                    I would far far rather see or march beside a properly kitted out and drilled woman - who can and should explain to the public that 'I am a male today' - than take the field with men in golf tams and tartan car blankets, or try to explain how a unit whose mean age is 50 and average weight 220 pounds is 'historically accurate'.

                    Now I'll get off MY soapbox!

                    PS: I hope no one takes my perhaps overblown rhetoric as an attack on Mr. Suthren. I consider myself priviliged to know him and firmly believe we can have a difference of opinion on this topic without any loss of mutual respect.
                  • Victor Suthren
                    Pete, I think I would have argued equally strenuously for the hiring of women at Fort Henry (whose interpretive focus is the year 1867, not 2010), but in
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Pete, I think I would have argued equally strenuously for the hiring of women at Fort Henry (whose interpretive focus is the year 1867, not 2010), but in women's roles of 1867. Same pay, same rights, same benefits as Fort Henry summer employees---but portraying what women could or could not do in 1867 (not the least so that girls can see how far they've come since then). Clearly this provincially-funded operation decided that an effort at historical accuracy, beyond a certain fun "military experience" was not important to them. As a result the British army of 1867 is portrayed as having evident female noncommissioned officers who give infantry commands in a clear soprano voice---effectively and efficiently---but which never occurred. One should by that token allow a six-foot, muscular and bearded young man to don a day dress and portray a soldier's wife in one of the casemate barrack rooms---which also never occurred (as far as we know). Don't you see, Pete? The past was unequal: why not portray it as such? But pay girls and boys equally to portray that.

                      Vic
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: petemonahan
                      To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:32 AM
                      Subject: Re: 1812 Interpreting Anomolies



                      In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Suthren" <suthren@...> wrote:

                      "An important point. Accuracy in re-enacting, a far as can be reasonably achieved, is always important for both the re-enactor and the audience...

                      Sometimes historical realities are distorted deliberately to meet current political ideology... 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.... Should this have happened?"

                      As no one else has belled this cat yet, I'll jump in here to do so. It seems to me that Vic's question conflates two issues, so my answer has two parts.

                      First: yes, the Fort Henry Guard should have been made to hire women, just as the guard at the Halifax Citadel should have,and did,hire African-Canadians who applied for that job. Agreed, the original units didn't have such members, barring the occasional 'ethnic oddity' or woman in drag. But we are NOT those units, nor do we live in 1812, 1860 or even 1916, when Black Canadians were relegated to non-combat roles in the CEF and women didn't vote!

                      Much as it may offend my sense of historical propriety, I would be mad as hell to discover that my child, or a neighbour's child coudln't apply for a taxpayer funded job for which she or he was otherwise perfectly qualified because 'it doesn't look right'! Unless of course there were such a surfeit of employment that the person, leaving aside the assault on his/her human rights and dignity, could go get another job of equal pay and quality. Or are girls not allowed to be fascinated by soldiering, 'dress-uop' and drill too?

                      Second, as has been pointed out, we are play acting. However educational and worthy our motives, we do it because it's fun and nobody is really, at the end of the day, under any real illusions about how real it is. None of us will be flogged, shot for cowardice or die of dysentry. Nor are any of the hard core authenticity types I know offering to give up modern medicine, running water or automobiles. Many won't even sacrifice modern specs to the impression!

                      I would far far rather see or march beside a properly kitted out and drilled woman - who can and should explain to the public that 'I am a male today' - than take the field with men in golf tams and tartan car blankets, or try to explain how a unit whose mean age is 50 and average weight 220 pounds is 'historically accurate'.

                      Now I'll get off MY soapbox!

                      PS: I hope no one takes my perhaps overblown rhetoric as an attack on Mr. Suthren. I consider myself priviliged to know him and firmly believe we can have a difference of opinion on this topic without any loss of mutual respect.





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Craig Williams
                      An interesting conundrum... ... Does this mean that a man wishing to cross-dress at Fort Henry or any other historic site, would have an employment equity case
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        An interesting conundrum...
                        > "the British army of 1867 is portrayed as having evident female
                        > noncommissioned officers who give infantry commands in a clear
                        > soprano voice---effectively and efficiently---but which never
                        > occurred. One should by that token allow a six-foot, muscular and
                        > bearded young man to don a day dress and portray a soldier's wife
                        > in one of the casemate barrack rooms---which also never occurred
                        > (as far as we know).
                        >

                        Does this mean that a man wishing to cross-dress at Fort Henry or any
                        other historic site, would have an employment equity case if he were
                        denied that "right" ?

                        Just playing "Devils Advocate" here...

                        Craig Williams

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • 12th US Infantry
                        Vic, ... 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
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                        • Tim Pickles
                          I have to say I agree 100% Vic. The question has to be what are we doing? Are we presenting an authentic slice of history to the public, warts and all, so that
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I have to say I agree 100% Vic.

                            The question has to be what are we doing? Are we presenting an authentic slice of history to the public, warts and all, so that they can see how far we have come for better AND worse, or are we playing dress up in funny clothes? Frankly what is the point of putting on an historical educational interpretation for the public if it has to be explained at the outset that to appease modern sensibilities what the audience is about to see is neither historical nor educational?
                            Go down that route and why don't we allow wheelchairs on the field? Why should participants be forced to wear old fashioned uniforms that stifle individual expression? Why can't a whole group of people from babes in arms to grandparents walking dogs just walk on to the field and carry signs saying that they represent the Royal Horse Guards, after all just because a regiment didn't take part in the war of 1812 why should that mean we can't represent it?

                            Personally I think the rule is simple (or should be), if a woman cannot be distinguished as such in the ranks, no problem. If someone can logically portray the character they wish to play, no problem, if there is an historical precedent for a seeming anomaly, no problem. Otherwise, if I can misquote Life of Brian, it is not a symbol of our struggle against oppression but a symbol of our struggle against reality.

                            Oh, and the suggestion I made to the chap in the wheelchair, (yes someone I know did ask me this question) stay in camp bed with the surgeon's tent and tell a very grisly story of how he was wounded. The chap said he quite liked the idea but never did it!

                            Aye,

                            Tim






                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Victor Suthren <suthren@...>
                            To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Mon, Sep 6, 2010 11:28 am
                            Subject: Re: 1812 Interpreting Anomolies




                            Pete, I think I would have argued equally strenuously for the hiring of women at Fort Henry (whose interpretive focus is the year 1867, not 2010), but in women's roles of 1867. Same pay, same rights, same benefits as Fort Henry summer employees---but portraying what women could or could not do in 1867 (not the least so that girls can see how far they've come since then). Clearly this provincially-funded operation decided that an effort at historical accuracy, beyond a certain fun "military experience" was not important to them. As a result the British army of 1867 is portrayed as having evident female noncommissioned officers who give infantry commands in a clear soprano voice---effectively and efficiently---but which never occurred. One should by that token allow a six-foot, muscular and bearded young man to don a day dress and portray a soldier's wife in one of the casemate barrack rooms---which also never occurred (as far as we know). Don't you see, Pete ? The past was unequal: why not portray it as such? But pay girls and boys equally to portray that.

                            Vic
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: petemonahan
                            To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:32 AM
                            Subject: Re: 1812 Interpreting Anomolies

                            In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Suthren" <suthren@...> wrote:

                            "An important point. Accuracy in re-enacting, a far as can be reasonably achieved, is always important for both the re-enactor and the audience...

                            Sometimes historical realities are distorted deliberately to meet current political ideology... 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.... Should this have happened?"

                            As no one else has belled this cat yet, I'll jump in here to do so. It seems to me that Vic's question conflates two issues, so my answer has two parts.

                            First: yes, the Fort Henry Guard should have been made to hire women, just as the guard at the Halifax Citadel should have,and did,hire African-Canadians who applied for that job. Agreed, the original units didn't have such members, barring the occasional 'ethnic oddity' or woman in drag. But we are NOT those units, nor do we live in 1812, 1860 or even 1916, when Black Canadians were relegated to non-combat roles in the CEF and women didn't vote!

                            Much as it may offend my sense of historical propriety, I would be mad as hell to discover that my child, or a neighbour's child coudln't apply for a taxpayer funded job for which she or he was otherwise perfectly qualified because 'it doesn't look right'! Unless of course there were such a surfeit of employment that the person, leaving aside the assault on his/her human rights and dignity, could go get another job of equal pay and quality. Or are girls not allowed to be fascinated by soldiering, 'dress-uop' and drill too?

                            Second, as has been pointed out, we are play acting. However educational and worthy our motives, we do it because it's fun and nobody is really, at the end of the day, under any real illusions about how real it is. None of us will be flogged, shot for cowardice or die of dysentry. Nor are any of the hard core authenticity types I know offering to give up modern medicine, running water or automobiles. Many won't even sacrifice modern specs to the impression!

                            I would far far rather see or march beside a properly kitted out and drilled woman - who can and should explain to the public that 'I am a male today' - than take the field with men in golf tams and tartan car blankets, or try to explain how a unit whose mean age is 50 and average weight 220 pounds is 'historically accurate'.

                            Now I'll get off MY soapbox!

                            PS: I hope no one takes my perhaps overblown rhetoric as an attack on Mr. Suthren. I consider myself priviliged to know him and firmly believe we can have a difference of opinion on this topic without any loss of mutual respect.

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







                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • petemonahan
                            In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pickles wrote: I have to say I agree 100% Vic. The question has to be what are we doing? Are we presenting
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pickles <BritcomHMP@...> wrote:

                              I have to say I agree 100% Vic.

                              "The question has to be what are we doing? Are we presenting an authentic slice of history to the public, warts and all..., Frankly what is the point of putting on an historical educational interpretation for the public if it has to be explained at the outset that to appease modern sensibilities what the audience is about to see is neither historical nor educational?"

                              I think Vic's idea of offering an equal number of jobs, assuming eqaul numbers of qualified applicants, is a great one, and I'm ashamed to say it never occurred to me. I also totally agree that we need to portray history with its warts on - that's why we do need to say, among other things, that 'No, there were no female soldiers. Yes, many of the people we portray were racist, sexist etc etc." And don't you think some of the 15 year old ensigns in British regiments had soprano voice
                              s?

                              We all love to tell the 'stupid tourist' stories - I certainly do - but if you assume that our audience will overlook the modern glasses, good teeth, lack of smallpox scars, beards, pot bellies, and grey hair why is it so hard to accept that they might overlook, or ignore as irrelevant, a peair of breasts and a high voice? In fact, an all male group of soldiers, in my experience, simply reinforces a still common view that war is a manly occupation, unless and until someone points out that there are no women in the group and explains or asks why that is so!

                              And please, let's not get into the 'slippery slope' argument. Suggesting that anyone is seriously proposing wheelchair mounted infantry is on a par with suggesting we should all get our fillings pulled and our foreskins reattached and be exposed to the lash and cholera morbus - just silly!

                              Ducking for cover now! (VBG)
                            • Tim Pickles
                              petemonahan petemonahan@sympatico.ca wrote: I think Vic s idea of offering an equal number of jobs, assuming eqaul numbers of qualified applicants, is a great
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 6, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                petemonahan petemonahan@... wrote:



                                I think Vic's idea of offering an equal number of jobs, assuming eqaul numbers of qualified applicants, is a great one, and I'm ashamed to say it never occurred to me. I also totally agree that we need to portray history with its warts on - that's why we do need to say, among other things, that 'No, there were no female soldiers. Yes, many of the people we portray were racist, sexist etc etc." And don't you think some of the 15 year old ensigns in British regiments had soprano voice
                                s?

                                Well Peter,

                                Personaly I think it is more educational if someone in the crowd asks 'why are there no women in the ranks?' And before we start condemning the people we portray for all kinds of 'isms' I think we need to remember that they were not people of the early 21st century and for there time might be considered very free thinking and modern. I am sure that some 15 year old ensigns did have high voices, however I have yet to see a woman playing that part. I think many of the ladies on the field seem to take on the part of a private in the line and, as I said, if they can carry this off without being detected (and I have seen it done) I have no objection whatsoever!

                                And please, let's not get into the 'slippery slope' argument. Suggesting that anyone is seriously proposing wheelchair mounted infantry is on a par with suggesting we should all get our fillings pulled and our foreskins reattached and be exposed to the lash and cholera morbus - just silly!

                                Ah well, interestingly I can remembery how various friends and I laughed like drains when politcaly correct laguage started apearing in the 1970s 'Oh look at the workpersonship of this chair' 'I suppose now we will have to call the mail man the person person' and such like well isn't the joke on us. As I said, the chap may well have been pulling my chain but the chap in the wheel chair (who could just get about on crutches) said that he thought it was unfair he couldn't go on the field as a soldier, true story! As for teeth, no problem, if you are that close to the crowd you can use makeup, and if you realy want to add to the effect, eat a cheese and onion sandwitch before giving your talk. You don't actualy have to have the diseases to present them to the public but, if you are in close proximity to the public why do somthing that everyone (but those who have come to learn and enjoy) knows is just plain wrong?
                                Oh and another point on the wheelchair thing, I suppose you know there are historic buildings, or parts of them, that are not open to the public any more because they cannot be made wheelchair accessable?

                                Frankly I can't see a reason to exclude anyone from our hobby, I cannot think of any disability, other than having to remain in a hospital bed or perminantly on oxigen, that would hold someone back from being a great asset to the hobby but one has to cut ones cloth apropriatly, though I confess a 350lb 50 year old turning out as a cornet of hussars might be fun to see!

                                Aye,

                                Tim













                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Colonel
                                Mr. Monahan, While I agree completely with what you, Vic, and Gen. Pickles have been saying on this subject, I really wish you had not said, ...war is a manly
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 7, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mr. Monahan,
                                  While I agree completely with what you, Vic, and Gen. Pickles have been saying on this subject, I really wish you had not said,"...war is a manly occupation..."
                                  I'm afraid you would have to explain that to the woman warriors of the Israeli army, the Chinese army, and most of the armed forces of the world. From recent history, one must remember the gallant female partisans of occupied France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Norway, China, Philippines, not to mention the Viet Cong, and the list goes on and on. We don't like to note it, but women are a key component of every terrorist army and strike force in the world today. Women have showed all through history that they could, and can, fight, kill, and serve fearlessly as well as any man. If one throws in the weight and strength factor that so many like to bring up, I would say this. I was a combat Marine at around 175 pounds and always felt pretty tough. But, I promise you I would never want to meet some 6'3" enemy at 250 pounds in hand to hand. (thank goodness for bullets and that my war was against smaller people) However, that doesn't mean that I, or a woman fighter, could not bring him down at a distance. And, it doesn't matter what gender you are when rockets start walking in on your position.
                                  So, like I said, I agree with what you guys are saying insofar as the hobby and historic accuracy is concerned. But, you can really open a can of worms with remarks like that above, and it weakens your argument.
                                  OK, go back to ducking lol.

                                  Tom Moore

                                  --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "petemonahan" <petemonahan@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pickles <BritcomHMP@> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I have to say I agree 100% Vic.
                                  >
                                  > "The question has to be what are we doing? Are we presenting an authentic slice of history to the public, warts and all..., Frankly what is the point of putting on an historical educational interpretation for the public if it has to be explained at the outset that to appease modern sensibilities what the audience is about to see is neither historical nor educational?"
                                  >
                                  > I think Vic's idea of offering an equal number of jobs, assuming eqaul numbers of qualified applicants, is a great one, and I'm ashamed to say it never occurred to me. I also totally agree that we need to portray history with its warts on - that's why we do need to say, among other things, that 'No, there were no female soldiers. Yes, many of the people we portray were racist, sexist etc etc." And don't you think some of the 15 year old ensigns in British regiments had soprano voice
                                  > s?
                                  >
                                  > We all love to tell the 'stupid tourist' stories - I certainly do - but if you assume that our audience will overlook the modern glasses, good teeth, lack of smallpox scars, beards, pot bellies, and grey hair why is it so hard to accept that they might overlook, or ignore as irrelevant, a peair of breasts and a high voice? In fact, an all male group of soldiers, in my experience, simply reinforces a still common view that war is a manly occupation, unless and until someone points out that there are no women in the group and explains or asks why that is so!
                                  >
                                  > And please, let's not get into the 'slippery slope' argument. Suggesting that anyone is seriously proposing wheelchair mounted infantry is on a par with suggesting we should all get our fillings pulled and our foreskins reattached and be exposed to the lash and cholera morbus - just silly!
                                  >
                                  > Ducking for cover now! (VBG)
                                  >
                                • peter monahan
                                  Tom I knew I shoulda kept my mouth shut on this topic. I never learn!! But, if you read the post again I said that nit was still [sadly] a common idea that
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 7, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Tom



                                    I knew I shoulda kept my mouth shut on this topic. I never learn!!



                                    But, if you read the post again I said that nit was still [sadly] a common idea that soldiering is men's work. Didn't mean I think so at all. I don't. In fact, to quote Rudyard kipling "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." And the species in question was Hiomo Sapiens!



                                    Have a great winter!



                                    Peter petemonahan@...
                                    705-435-0953h / 705-792-8895c





                                    > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                    > From: lehrerprofessoren@...
                                    > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:27:34 +0000
                                    > Subject: Re: 1812 Interpreting Anomolies
                                    >
                                    > Mr. Monahan,
                                    > While I agree completely with what you, Vic, and Gen. Pickles have been saying on this subject, I really wish you had not said,"...war is a manly occupation..."
                                    > I'm afraid you would have to explain that to the woman warriors of the Israeli army, the Chinese army, and most of the armed forces of the world. From recent history, one must remember the gallant female partisans of occupied France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Norway, China, Philippines, not to mention the Viet Cong, and the list goes on and on. We don't like to note it, but women are a key component of every terrorist army and strike force in the world today. Women have showed all through history that they could, and can, fight, kill, and serve fearlessly as well as any man. If one throws in the weight and strength factor that so many like to bring up, I would say this. I was a combat Marine at around 175 pounds and always felt pretty tough. But, I promise you I would never want to meet some 6'3" enemy at 250 pounds in hand to hand. (thank goodness for bullets and that my war was against smaller people) However, that doesn't mean that I, or a woman fighter, could not bring him down at a distance. And, it doesn't matter what gender you are when rockets start walking in on your position.
                                    > So, like I said, I agree with what you guys are saying insofar as the hobby and historic accuracy is concerned. But, you can really open a can of worms with remarks like that above, and it weakens your argument.
                                    > OK, go back to ducking lol.
                                    >
                                    > Tom Moore
                                    >
                                    > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "petemonahan" <petemonahan@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pickles <BritcomHMP@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > I have to say I agree 100% Vic.
                                    > >
                                    > > "The question has to be what are we doing? Are we presenting an authentic slice of history to the public, warts and all..., Frankly what is the point of putting on an historical educational interpretation for the public if it has to be explained at the outset that to appease modern sensibilities what the audience is about to see is neither historical nor educational?"
                                    > >
                                    > > I think Vic's idea of offering an equal number of jobs, assuming eqaul numbers of qualified applicants, is a great one, and I'm ashamed to say it never occurred to me. I also totally agree that we need to portray history with its warts on - that's why we do need to say, among other things, that 'No, there were no female soldiers. Yes, many of the people we portray were racist, sexist etc etc." And don't you think some of the 15 year old ensigns in British regiments had soprano voice
                                    > > s?
                                    > >
                                    > > We all love to tell the 'stupid tourist' stories - I certainly do - but if you assume that our audience will overlook the modern glasses, good teeth, lack of smallpox scars, beards, pot bellies, and grey hair why is it so hard to accept that they might overlook, or ignore as irrelevant, a peair of breasts and a high voice? In fact, an all male group of soldiers, in my experience, simply reinforces a still common view that war is a manly occupation, unless and until someone points out that there are no women in the group and explains or asks why that is so!
                                    > >
                                    > > And please, let's not get into the 'slippery slope' argument. Suggesting that anyone is seriously proposing wheelchair mounted infantry is on a par with suggesting we should all get our fillings pulled and our foreskins reattached and be exposed to the lash and cholera morbus - just silly!
                                    > >
                                    > > Ducking for cover now! (VBG)
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > War of 1812 Living History:
                                    > A wide-ranging information exchange
                                    > for all participants and supporters
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Unit Contact information for North America:
                                    > Crown Forces Unit Listing:
                                    > http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
                                    > American Forces Unit Listing
                                    > http://usforces1812.tripod.com
                                    >
                                    > WAR OF 1812 EVENTS LIST:
                                    > http://royal.scots.tripod.com/warof1812eventslist
                                    > 2010Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Tim Pickles
                                    I m afraid you would have to explain that to the woman warriors of the Israeli army, the Chinese army, and most of the armed forces of the world. From recent
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 7, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'm afraid you would have to explain that to the woman warriors of the Israeli army, the Chinese army, and most of the armed forces of the world. From recent history, one must remember the gallant female partisans of occupied France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Norway, China, Philippines, not to mention the Viet Cong, and the list goes on and on. We don't like to note it, but women are a key component of every terrorist army and strike force in the world today. Women have showed all through history that they could, and can, fight, kill, and serve fearlessly as well as any man.


                                      And Tom, don't forget Lakshmi Bai, Maharani of Jansi who led a rebelion in India and died in hand to hand combat with a trooper of the 3rd LD, or Elizabeth I, who could be left unmoved by her famous speech at Tilbury (paraphrase) 'I have come to live or die with my people, I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a King, aye and a King of England too!'
                                      The Spanish didn't stand a chance.


                                      Aye,

                                      Tim



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Tim Pickles
                                      But, if you read the post again I said that nit was still [sadly] a common idea that soldiering is men s work. Didn t mean I think so at all. I don t. In fact,
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 7, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        But, if you read the post again I said that nit was still [sadly] a common idea that soldiering is men's work. Didn't mean I think so at all. I don't. In fact, to quote Rudyard kipling "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." And the species in question was Hiomo Sapiens!

                                        Have a great winter!

                                        Peter



                                        Thinking of Kipling,

                                        When you're wounded,
                                        And lie on Afghanistan's plain's
                                        And the women come out
                                        To cut up what remains
                                        Just roll on your Martini
                                        And blow out your brains
                                        And go to your God like a soldier.

                                        Soldier of the Queen


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Ron
                                        Hi Soo, I think that the idea of a part of the encampment representing a nearby town is a brilliant concept. Merchants, civilians, craftspersons etc that do
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 7, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi Soo,

                                          I think that the idea of a part of the encampment representing a nearby town is a brilliant concept. Merchants, civilians, craftspersons etc that do not really fit into the scenario of troops on campaign would fit very well into this encampment. Interpreting this is a question of letting the visitors know that there were not civilian encampments on battlefields but that the civilian "village" is representing some activities that took place in some of the towns and villages at the time of the War of 1812.

                                          I personally think that having women in the ranks in battle scenarios is fine. I also strongly support all of the non-military activities at reenactments--always providing that they are interpreted to the public. My personal bugbear is when a lady in the encampment is asked about her role and she answers that camp followers, suttlers etc were a normal part of 1812 campaigning--or worse when a woman in the ranks on being asked suggests that this was a common occurence. There may have been the odd woman in the ranks in 1812 but her own comrades did not recognize her as a woman, These were manly looking babes--unlike Bob on "Blackadder Goes Forth."

                                          The key to all of this is that anomolies are expected--it is a hobby and partipants want to enjoy themselves while providing an educational experience. They should, however, interpret the anomolies to the public so the public is not misinformed. It took women centuries to struggle for equality and the youth of today should know how things have changed.

                                          Ron




                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Soo <saultcitysoo@...>
                                          To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Mon, Sep 6, 2010 9:18 am
                                          Subject: 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies




                                          Ron,

                                          You have raised some very good points.

                                          I really think that women can add to the re-enactments, but we have to rethink our roles. While I have been guilty of cross dressing <VBG> and serving on a gun crew, I also enjoy talking with the public as a female and sticking pins in the balloons of those who think all camp followers where harlots.

                                          Separate activities such as teas for the ladies are a good way of net working, but should be explained.

                                          For instance: at the last re-enactment in Gananoque, I was asked by the GLI to do the cooking for them. Working with the scenerio, I explained to the public that the GLI did not take their women with them. I was a tavern keeper in Gan, and the soldiers were billeted nearby and I had been engaged to provide meals, while the soldiers recruited and trained the local sedentary militia. I asked that the public use their imagination and see my wall tent and kitchen as "the tavern".

                                          I am also attempting to organize a group of civilian re-enactors to portray the civilians during the War of 1812. With Dianne Graves kind permission, we are calling ourselves "Civilians in the Midst of Alarums". The idea is to give an alternative to those who do not wish to do a military impression - or to those who wish to stay in the hobby, but no longer to participate in battles.
                                          However, we do wish to keep a high standard of interpretation in the matters of accurate history, dress, etc. Since the majority of civilians were NOT "upper" class, we need people happy to portray settlers/farmers, labourers, etc. We don't wish to be the "dress-up" people! Frankly, rankers wives swanning around camp in evening gowns makes me crazy! LOL
                                          We would hope to have a separate area away from the military which could be designated as the civilian village/town du jour.

                                          Whoops! Time to get off my soap box.

                                          We are based in eastern Ontario at the moment and in dire need of numbers to be able to be registered with the NFA at reasonable rates.
                                          So......if anyone is interested, please contact me off list.

                                          Sue Too

                                          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "ronpontiac" <ronaldjdale@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > In efforts to inform the public, inspire interest in our past, capture imaginations etc there is nothing like a reenactment.
                                          >
                                          > Great efforts are taken to ensure accuracy in uniforms and accoutrements. Of course various anomolies to strict accuracy in presentation are unavoidable. Dozens reenact the activities of historic hundreds or thousands, ladies hold high tea near the battlefield, safety precautions (like non useage of ramrods) are taken, etc. Still the public are treated to something dramatic, entertaining and highly educational.
                                          >
                                          > However, care must be taken to avoid misinformation. The ladies can camp out and have their teas etc but should point out to the public that soldiers did not bring their families on campaigns and things like tea might have been held in communities in which garrisons were stationed but not near the fields of battle. Narrators should explain that muskets were rammed but the reenactors are not doing so as a safety precaution, that the reenactors are representing an historic action, not replicating it soldier for soldier, etc
                                          >
                                          > I write this after reading an article on a Fenian Raid reenactment in the Autumn edition of the Escarpment News, a local publication. This reenactment at Fort Erie includes women in the ranks, the same thing seen in reenactments from other time periods. However, someone screwed up in the information given to the reporter writing the story.
                                          > The article states: " women fought in 19th century battles, sometimes disguised as males."
                                          >
                                          > While we do know that some women fought in 19th century wars, all were disguised as males. Nobody knew they were women until they were wounded and it was the missing parts not through enemy action that gave them away. They must have been some lookers!
                                          >
                                          > Women who are reenacting the roles of soldiers should inform their audience that women did not join the army in 1812 but that they enjoy reenacting the role of an 1812 soldier and are portraying a man from that period, not a woman in drag.
                                          >
                                          > Ron
                                          >







                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Tom Hurlbut
                                          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
                                          Message 20 of 29 , 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
                                            Maryland

                                            --- 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]
                                          • gary beauregard
                                            I agree with Tom. I d sooner give up doing certain periods than alter who I am, in the real world.   Beau ... From: Tom Hurlbut
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 7, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I agree with Tom. I'd sooner give up doing certain periods than alter who I am, in the real world.
                                               
                                              Beau

                                              --- On Tue, 9/7/10, Tom Hurlbut <hurlbut8646@...> wrote:


                                              From: Tom Hurlbut <hurlbut8646@...>
                                              Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies
                                              To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                              Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 9:11 PM


                                               



                                              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
                                              Maryland

                                              --- 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]








                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • spikeyj
                                              ... One problem with allowing men and women to participate at Old Fort Henry but only in gender-appropriate impressions is that the Guard has dozens of
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > 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?

                                                One problem with allowing men and women to participate at
                                                Old Fort Henry but only in gender-appropriate impressions
                                                is that the Guard has dozens of members. Since the reason
                                                for the inclusion of women in the Guard was gender
                                                equality, in order to achieve the same numbers in
                                                gender-appropriate impressions they'd had to set up a
                                                commercial bakery in the fort, with dozens of women baking
                                                loaf after loaf of bread at a long line of ovens --
                                                preferably as a precision drill exercise.

                                                Spike Y Jones
                                              • Victor Suthren
                                                I guess it s always a question of degree. There is a spectrum of re-enactment that goes from the hard-core, skin-out authentic fanatic across to the
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  I guess it's always a question of degree. There is a spectrum of re-enactment that goes from the hard-core, skin-out 'authentic' fanatic across to the "polyester pirate" held together with Velcro. It's always struck me that re-enactors need to remember that what they do is for the other guy to experience the 'reality' of the past as much as for himself. I know I've had the sinking feeling of a moment spoiled when in, say, an 1812 tactical evolution in a pristine setting that was beautifully unfolding like a 19th Century watercolour, a large, potbellied "light infantryman" waddles in to the scene with sunglasses, a full beard, and a don't-mess-with-me attitude (the dreaded BBB re-enactor), and the precious illusion of the past, conjured for a moment, is gone. It's only a hobby, and the guy has a right to be there, of course, but....(sigh)....

                                                  Vic Suthren


                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: gary beauregard
                                                  To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:17 PM
                                                  Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies



                                                  I agree with Tom. I'd sooner give up doing certain periods than alter who I am, in the real world.

                                                  Beau

                                                  --- On Tue, 9/7/10, Tom Hurlbut <hurlbut8646@...> wrote:

                                                  From: Tom Hurlbut <hurlbut8646@...>
                                                  Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies
                                                  To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 9:11 PM



                                                  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
                                                  Maryland

                                                  --- 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]

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





                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • larrylozon
                                                  Ladies and Gentlemen of this Yahoo Group If you visit the archives you will see that this debate of Women portraying Soldiers at 1812 re-enactments has been
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Ladies and Gentlemen of this Yahoo Group


                                                    If you visit the archives you will see that this debate of Women portraying Soldiers at 1812 re-enactments has been debated to it's limits.

                                                    If the debate is to keep Jim happy that his Yahoo Group is functioning, by all mean continue.

                                                    If it is to arrive at a solution "forget-about-it"

                                                    In the War of 1812 women did not join the arm ... there may be a few instances where females fought but it was not the norm. At least what I have been told.

                                                    It is great to talk of woman warriors but not in 1812 – 1815
                                                    Is it not the time period we do?

                                                    We cannot agree on hand sewn clothes, strait last shoes, wool versus canvas, facial hair ... so why should we be able to agree on female soldiers!

                                                    The narrators at events have told the spectators that some of what they will see is not historically correct but the spectator and news reporters do not listen to what the narrators say.

                                                    In a few weeks I will attend Mississinewa 1812 where I will narrate five or so tacticals and when I am through narrating there will always be a spectator who will come up to me and ask if a certain red/green coated regiment was at the original battle and I will tell them that the original battle was between USA Forces and Indians there were no Crown Forces in attendance.

                                                    Every spectator is given a brochure on entrance which has the historical account of the Battle of Mississinewa but they don't read it or listen to what the narrator say.

                                                    As this hobby slowly winds down for 2010 and we look forward to 2011 we can come up with many excuses why we do what we do. Shall we do the War of 1812 historically accurate as far as can be reasonably achieved `NO' we will always say we don't have the pox, dysentery, etc. but not all soldiers in the War of 1812 had those diseases, none of the solders smoked filter tipped, store bought cigarettes!


                                                    There I have entered the minefield ! :^)
                                                    ... but it's only a hobby !!!

                                                    So, as was said, "OK, go back to ducking"

                                                    Yrs.,
                                                    L2


                                                    --- "Victor Suthren" wrote:

                                                    "... There is a spectrum of re-enactment that goes from the hard
                                                    core, skin-out 'authentic' fanatic across to the "polyester pirate" held together with Velcro ... and ... It's only a hobby ..."
                                                  • adjutant1812
                                                    But no one can justify a full beard for 1812 by any stretch (pioneers/sappers and voyageur types excepted). ... Peter, As someone who spent a number of
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      But no one can justify a full beard for 1812 by any stretch (pioneers/sappers and voyageur types excepted). >
                                                      > Peter Butrite
                                                      > Maryland
                                                      >

                                                      Peter,

                                                      As someone who spent a number of years interpreting voyageurs I wish to add that while facial hair is very common among reeactors in that set as well it is also not correct. A review of period paintings of voyageurs will show that there are no beards etc. Many years ago a fur trade historian challenged us on a number of myths of the fur trade. We were unable to prove him wrong. Many of us changed our interpretation based upon this challenge. Our focus was Midwest Fur trade of the early 19th century. Note to all, I am referring to voyageurs, not mountain men. The more specific of an interpretation one engages in the more the details can become important.

                                                      I believe that our interpretation and equipment should change based upon ongoing research and a desire to improve.

                                                      Cheers
                                                      Jas
                                                    • annbwass@aol.com
                                                      I posted this a while ago, but will mention it again. Sally Queen compiled a continuum of accuracy in interpretation. It is up to everyone (and/or the sites
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        I posted this a while ago, but will mention it again. Sally Queen compiled a continuum of accuracy in interpretation. It is up to everyone (and/or the sites where they interpret) to decide where along the continuum they will be. As to shaving, I'm not convinced that every man shaved every day--however, that being said, I realize there is a difference between 3 days of stubble and a full beard.

                                                        My husband, bless his soul, only comes out for a couple of events a year (and he does not do a military impression.) He absolutely refuses to shave his beard. But I would rather have him at said events (especially our 12th Night Ball--he is an accomplished dance master) with a beard than not there at all. Hoped we could make him a Jewish merchant--we know there were some in Baltimore--but alas! pictoral evidence indicates they were also clean-shaven.

                                                        When it comes down to it, we just can't be 100% accurate. Even if fellows are young enough to be creditable soldiers, for example, their body build and posture aren't usually accurate. (Think of Yul Brynner as Jean Lafitte in "The Buccaneer"--those shoulders!)

                                                        But I do agree that, in all too many cases, spectators remember the exceptions or inaccuracies rather than what we are trying to convey.

                                                        Ann Wass

                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: adjutant1812 <j.lundgren@...>
                                                        To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                                        Sent: Wed, Sep 8, 2010 9:33 am
                                                        Subject: 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies




                                                        But no one can justify a full beard for 1812 by any stretch (pioneers/sappers and voyageur types excepted). >
                                                        > Peter Butrite
                                                        > Maryland
                                                        >

                                                        Peter,

                                                        As someone who spent a number of years interpreting voyageurs I wish to add that while facial hair is very common among reeactors in that set as well it is also not correct. A review of period paintings of voyageurs will show that there are no beards etc. Many years ago a fur trade historian challenged us on a number of myths of the fur trade. We were unable to prove him wrong. Many of us changed our interpretation based upon this challenge. Our focus was Midwest Fur trade of the early 19th century. Note to all, I am referring to voyageurs, not mountain men. The more specific of an interpretation one engages in the more the details can become important.

                                                        I believe that our interpretation and equipment should change based upon ongoing research and a desire to improve.

                                                        Cheers
                                                        Jas







                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • James Yaworsky
                                                        ... Since the reason ... Come, come, my good man! Surely this admittedly bizarre scenario need not occur! Why, there is also a great need for a
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "spikeyj" <spikeyj@...> wrote:
                                                          Since the reason
                                                          > for the inclusion of women in the Guard was gender
                                                          > equality, in order to achieve the same numbers in
                                                          > gender-appropriate impressions they'd had to set up a
                                                          > commercial bakery in the fort, with dozens of women baking
                                                          > loaf after loaf of bread at a long line of ovens --


                                                          Come, come, my good man! Surely this admittedly bizarre scenario need not occur!

                                                          Why, there is also a great need for a fully-functioning laundry as well. And there are floors to be mopped, and "night soil" containers to be emptied!

                                                          And dare I suggest some "ladies of the night" doing a few day jobs, perhaps servicing the needs of some of the men who were on sentry duty the night before?

                                                          "Mad Dog"
                                                        • Charlie Quesenberry
                                                          Well said, sir. Am taking razor in hand Friday evening and de-bearding myself for Defender s Day Weekend. Its not that I want to, but it grows back. As one
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Well said, sir. Am taking razor in hand Friday evening and de-bearding
                                                            myself for Defender's Day Weekend. Its not that I want to, but it grows
                                                            back.

                                                            As one far wiser than I said; "One cannot make a second first impression."
                                                            I think that is appropros towards those whom we are trying hard to educate
                                                            beyond the Hollywood version(s).

                                                            On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:14 PM, qayanguaq <pbutrite@...> wrote:

                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > Some of us appear to have adopted a replacement for the venerable
                                                            > expression "Far be it...". That is - "Don't let me ruin your 1812
                                                            > experience". Happily, it's a razor that cuts both ways. On the one
                                                            > hand it implies: I value your contribution/participation; you have to
                                                            > decide what your own "best level of effort" will be; etc. On the other,
                                                            > it suggests that you ought consider the effect your choices are having
                                                            > on my 1812 experience. I'm just hoping to remind folks that reducing
                                                            > the most glaring - and easily fixed - anomaly may represent the best
                                                            > value here (best "bang for the buck" if you like).
                                                            >
                                                            > For myself, I'm as swaddled in cotton as any wealthy Gentleman.
                                                            > Clearly not period common or correct. But at a few yards distance, that
                                                            > doesn't detract substantially from anyone's view. For those committed
                                                            > to appropriate fabric construction, may you reap the accolades you
                                                            > deserve. For us lesser mortals, let us gin up as much respect for our
                                                            > fellow participants as possible. For me that means putting up the best
                                                            > presentation I can, despite seeming to be not "who I am in the real
                                                            > world". However, the transient effects of that appearance indeed does
                                                            > reflect who I am in the "real world" - a part time, bald-faced
                                                            > historical interpreter. Every "hobby" involves some suffering -
                                                            > financial, temporal, physical...or all the above. I don't really
                                                            > understand how we, who spend thousands of dollars plus years of research
                                                            > and collecting effort to put together good kit, are willing to blot that
                                                            > out thoroughly with a bogus, furry visage. But don't let me ruin your
                                                            > 1812 experience...
                                                            >
                                                            > To paraphrase one of my colleagues -
                                                            > I remain, in the hope of comforting the disturbed and disturbing the
                                                            > comfortable,
                                                            >
                                                            > Peter Butrite
                                                            > Nottingham, Maryland
                                                            >
                                                            > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>, "Victor
                                                            > Suthren" <suthren@...> wrote:
                                                            > >
                                                            > > I guess it's always a question of degree. There is a spectrum of
                                                            > re-enactment that goes from the hard-core, skin-out 'authentic' fanatic
                                                            > across to the "polyester pirate" held together with Velcro. It's always
                                                            > struck me that re-enactors need to remember that what they do is for the
                                                            > other guy to experience the 'reality' of the past as much as for
                                                            > himself. I know I've had the sinking feeling of a moment spoiled when
                                                            > in, say, an 1812 tactical evolution in a pristine setting that was
                                                            > beautifully unfolding like a 19th Century watercolour, a large,
                                                            > potbellied "light infantryman" waddles in to the scene with sunglasses,
                                                            > a full beard, and a don't-mess-with-me attitude (the dreaded BBB
                                                            > re-enactor), and the precious illusion of the past, conjured for a
                                                            > moment, is gone. It's only a hobby, and the guy has a right to be there,
                                                            > of course, but....(sigh)....
                                                            > >
                                                            > > Vic Suthren
                                                            > >
                                                            > >
                                                            > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                            > > From: gary beauregard
                                                            > > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>
                                                            > > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:17 PM
                                                            > > Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies
                                                            > >
                                                            > >
                                                            > >
                                                            > > I agree with Tom. I'd sooner give up doing certain periods than
                                                            > alter who I am, in the real world.
                                                            > >
                                                            > > Beau
                                                            > >
                                                            > > --- On Tue, 9/7/10, Tom Hurlbut hurlbut8646@... wrote:
                                                            > >
                                                            > > From: Tom Hurlbut hurlbut8646@...
                                                            > > Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies
                                                            > > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>
                                                            > > Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 9:11 PM
                                                            > >
                                                            > >
                                                            > >
                                                            > > 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
                                                            > >
                                                            >
                                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >


                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          • Tom Hurlbut
                                                            It may not be that simple for some to give up elements of their real life to the hobby. If you have a specific image you project to the world, you may be
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Sep 8, 2010
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              It may not be that simple for some to give up elements of their real life to
                                                              the hobby. If you have a specific image you project to the world, you may be
                                                              uncomfortable or even compromised by altering your appearance in a manner
                                                              not easily corrected.



                                                              Some folks may have a 20 or 30 year beard or, for that matter, the length of
                                                              their hair that they don't wish to give up because of how it may effect
                                                              those around them.



                                                              Some may wish to comply, some may not. If you are willing, then good on you!
                                                              But, your beard obviously doesn't mean all that much to you, does it? For
                                                              others, it may be more important, and for reasons you might not accept or
                                                              understand.



                                                              It is still a personal choice.



                                                              "Major" Tom (sometimes bearded, sometimes not, but always long-haired)

                                                              _____

                                                              From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                              Of qayanguaq
                                                              Sent: September 8, 2010 6:15 PM
                                                              To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                                              Subject: [Bulk] [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies





                                                              Some of us appear to have adopted a replacement for the venerable
                                                              expression "Far be it...". That is - "Don't let me ruin your 1812
                                                              experience". Happily, it's a razor that cuts both ways. On the one
                                                              hand it implies: I value your contribution/participation; you have to
                                                              decide what your own "best level of effort" will be; etc. On the other,
                                                              it suggests that you ought consider the effect your choices are having
                                                              on my 1812 experience. I'm just hoping to remind folks that reducing
                                                              the most glaring - and easily fixed - anomaly may represent the best
                                                              value here (best "bang for the buck" if you like).

                                                              For myself, I'm as swaddled in cotton as any wealthy Gentleman.
                                                              Clearly not period common or correct. But at a few yards distance, that
                                                              doesn't detract substantially from anyone's view. For those committed
                                                              to appropriate fabric construction, may you reap the accolades you
                                                              deserve. For us lesser mortals, let us gin up as much respect for our
                                                              fellow participants as possible. For me that means putting up the best
                                                              presentation I can, despite seeming to be not "who I am in the real
                                                              world". However, the transient effects of that appearance indeed does
                                                              reflect who I am in the "real world" - a part time, bald-faced
                                                              historical interpreter. Every "hobby" involves some suffering -
                                                              financial, temporal, physical...or all the above. I don't really
                                                              understand how we, who spend thousands of dollars plus years of research
                                                              and collecting effort to put together good kit, are willing to blot that
                                                              out thoroughly with a bogus, furry visage. But don't let me ruin your
                                                              1812 experience...

                                                              To paraphrase one of my colleagues -
                                                              I remain, in the hope of comforting the disturbed and disturbing the
                                                              comfortable,

                                                              Peter Butrite
                                                              Nottingham, Maryland

                                                              --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                                                              "Victor Suthren" <suthren@...> wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > I guess it's always a question of degree. There is a spectrum of
                                                              re-enactment that goes from the hard-core, skin-out 'authentic' fanatic
                                                              across to the "polyester pirate" held together with Velcro. It's always
                                                              struck me that re-enactors need to remember that what they do is for the
                                                              other guy to experience the 'reality' of the past as much as for
                                                              himself. I know I've had the sinking feeling of a moment spoiled when
                                                              in, say, an 1812 tactical evolution in a pristine setting that was
                                                              beautifully unfolding like a 19th Century watercolour, a large,
                                                              potbellied "light infantryman" waddles in to the scene with sunglasses,
                                                              a full beard, and a don't-mess-with-me attitude (the dreaded BBB
                                                              re-enactor), and the precious illusion of the past, conjured for a
                                                              moment, is gone. It's only a hobby, and the guy has a right to be there,
                                                              of course, but....(sigh)....
                                                              >
                                                              > Vic Suthren
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > ----- Original Message -----
                                                              > From: gary beauregard
                                                              > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>
                                                              > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:17 PM
                                                              > Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > I agree with Tom. I'd sooner give up doing certain periods than
                                                              alter who I am, in the real world.
                                                              >
                                                              > Beau
                                                              >
                                                              > --- On Tue, 9/7/10, Tom Hurlbut hurlbut8646@... wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > From: Tom Hurlbut hurlbut8646@...
                                                              > Subject: RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies
                                                              > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>
                                                              > Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 9:11 PM
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > 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
                                                              >

                                                              [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.