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

RE: [Bulk] 1812 Re: Interpreting Anomolies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.