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

Re: 1812 Interpreting Anomolies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.