A Rant...

[unionblue]

Jpflynn,

I understand where you are coming from, really.

When I first started reenacting in late '91, early '92, all of my sponsors told me to get a good, basic uniform first, starting from my feet to my head, and THEN to worry about buying a musket, leathers, etc.

So, I started with a good pair of black brogans, good period wool socks, my sky-blue trousers, my "braces," then a four-button shirt, a four-button sack coat, then, at last, a good forage cap.

Once I had all of the above, I was lent a rifle, leathers, canteen, haversack, etc., until I could afford to buy those items. My unit took pride in the fact that we looked "real" and they were very strict about who fell in with them from other units at away reenactments. Safety was our primary concern, and then an authentic look, both in person and in camp.

I think units should be strict about who they let in, but they should also allow for growth, as the hobby does take quite a bit of cash to be fully done.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[deleson1]

First of all, i would blame the unit that allowed the person to fall in. No self respecting unit would allow that, period. The 3 units I fell in with over the 12 years in reenacting all had equipment to lend for fresh fish. They gave the new guy 6 months to purchase his own equipment. This gave a new recruit time to determine if reenacting was what he wanted to do before spending his money. If after 6 months significant progress was not made in obtaining gear, the recruit had to give back the borrowed equipment. Yes the initial cost of reenacting is high, but in all reality is a very inexpensive hobby. I could go to a event for a 3 day weekend only needing powder and maybe 2o dollars for food, total cost 40. Compare that to 3 days at a modern campground, 3 day golf weekend, horseback riding ect. Most of your equipment, if maintained, will last longer than you probably will be in the hobby. Another fact, if the unit you belong to is listed as a historical non profit unit and incorporated as such, you can deduct alot of your reenacting costs. I have deducted uniforms, weapons, meals, gas expenses getting to events. You have to keep great records to do so, but it is a legal tax deduction. I have been audited by irs while still reenacting and all my deductions were certified by them. Camp Chase, are they still in business, use to have articles on tax deducting reenacting costs.

 

[James B White]

Not every reenactment has to be for every person, and in fact, they're not. If a reenactor doesn't want to see modern shoes, for instance, there are dozens--probably hundreds--of events that don't permit them and truly enforce that rule, so the simple solution is just to go to those events.

In sports, there are back-yard pick-up games for everyone whether they even care about playing well or not; there are amateur leagues; then there are events that participants need to qualify for, with a certain level of skill and equipment. In general, no one complains that beginners, or those who don't have hours to practice, or those who can't afford the equipment, aren't permitted to just walk out onto the field and play in every game of their choice, from the neighborhood park to the Olympics. There's an understanding that the overall experience is better for everyone if people at different levels are grouped together. And if someone at an elite level does happen to wander into the park and join a pick-up game, it would really make no sense to complain that the other players weren't good enough, since he could just stick to the elite games with his peers if he wanted.

Living history is the same way. I posted over on the "Relive the 1860s" thread. None of those experiences would have been possible if every event was required to be open to every person, but the organizers for each one set the standards. I don't recall modern shoes at any of them, but there were beginners in loaner clothes at almost all of them, who had been carefully coached to help them meet the standards, because they wanted to be part of it. Depending on the historic situation, some events do require physical stamina, but others include people with mental or physical disabilities, since of course they were part of the 1860s as well, so exclusion isn't based on insurmountable obstacles.

 

[unicornforge]

The discussion of what should be tolerated at reenactments and living history events has been going on for as many years as I can remember. Farby/unacceptable seems to be whatever is less than presented by the speaker, and threadcounting/compulsive tends to be whatever is more effort and authentic than the speaker/writer.

I simply suggest keeping in mind that if only authentic young men under 25 who sleep on the ground wrapped only in a blanket are allowed at events, then the event will look not only farby but extremely silly with the small number of participants allowed to participate.

That said:
1) It is up to the organizers to set the standards.
2) If the standard is not "family oriented" then in many cases the event will not likely have sufficient participants to hold a successful event (as defined by the organizers and/or participants).
3) The prediction is that after the 150th Gettysburg, participation will drop off in a big way thus changing the scope and appearance of reenactments and living history events.

and

What bugs me the most is a 20ish-year-old in a spotless (and possibly polyester) class A uniform with colonel's bars, with iron camp gear, and modern wooden camp stuff tries to lecture me on what he thinks is authentic. Especially when I have many many thousands of dollars and years hand-making and gathering my equipment, and he simply walked into a store and handed them his charge-card.

and

If you really want to look authentic, then I humbly suggest going to some place such as Marinos sutlery in Gettysburg. He can tell you who *hand makes* the item that you are looking for, that looks authentic. And while you are there *please* tell Marinos all about how authentic you are. ;-)

 

[James B White]

2) If the standard is not "family oriented" then in many cases the event will not likely have sufficient participants to hold a successful event (as defined by the organizers and/or participants).

If "family oriented" is code for "fairly low standards," then from personal experience, I don't find that to be true, as shown by all the events which set standards higher than "family oriented" and have no problem meeting their attendance goals.

There is a point at which standards can be set too high to reach minimum necessary participation levels, causing the cancellation of an event, but before someone says that all events must have "family oriented" standards, I'd suggested attending a few that don't, and see if the numbers really do seem too small.

 

[Blessmag]

I have never been a re-enactor. Have cousins who did and heard stories of their participation and the cost.

HOWEVER, realize this is my left handed ness coming out, there could be another option (weak one I will admit) Many of the recruits did not get uniforms right away. Some had to wait days and or months. Was the flick Glory about the soldiers NOT getting boots and uniforms. They had to wear what they owned until issued. So today's 'soldier' has to wear his Nike's until he 'receives/owns" is period stuff.

Maybe part of the newbie's training is teaching what is proper attire. but ALSO what would be appropriate discussion when asked to share. "Yeah, quartermaster hasn't issued me a uniform yet and with this being the 4th year of the war, I do not know when I'll get one unless I take one off a dead soldier" Ain't life in this trench a female dog"

 

[Elaine Kessinger]

He may be suggesting that unless families are permitted to participate together at events, the events won't get sufficient participation.

1. Not true! Many of the better events exclude non-military from the military camp and exclude military from the "Town"

2. Not true! Many "better" events find ways to include non-military in appropriate ways

3. If one wants a "Boys Only Gun Club" they should join one, not purport to give an "accurate" history of the Civil War

If you don't want the casual standards of the non-military folk to "bring down" the events, then have the standards for non-military be just as high as for the military... and enforce them. You WILL still get non-military participation and you will still get families to your event. Just be prepared for us. You'll get the best of us if you throw up a few large temporary structures in Farmer Smith's field or if Farmer Smith will allow an invited group to take the porch of his farmhouse during the day.

 

[JWheeler331]

Well, I don't reenact, but as a member of the audience I surely do feel cheated. And I truly appreciate the guys who go the extra mile!

I second this.

I think that its prob. because in some areas the reenacting community is smaller and so they are lax on their requirements. I dont agree with it either though. I sure do like to see correct uniforms, campsites, guns etc.

 

[23rdYahoos]

I stood next to a Major, who was a seasoned reenactor and Staff Officer at a large east coast event, who was advising a new recruit to go ahead and buy a pair of Wal-Mart black engineer shoes or a pair of black 'SWAT' boots as no one can see what you are wearing on your feet from more than a few feet away, and that buying brogans was a waste of time and money.

Now this young man has it in his mind that 'cheating' is okay if you invoke the 5 foot rule, and it had nothing to do with his ability to finance his foray into the hobby, or even trying to put together a good impression.

As a side note, I did have a chance to talk to this recruit later and had a very good conversation regarding his kit. He will not be shopping at Wal-Mart.

But, my biggest pet peeve is women with painted fingernails, earrings and obvious make up. Come on! What First Sgt is allowing that to happen!? I'm all for being inclusive, and have no problem with women on the field. Just don't like the ones who look like they are going clubbing after the battle.

 

[phil1861]

Jpflynn,

I understand where you are coming from, really.

When I first started reenacting in late '91, early '92, all of my sponsors told me to get a good, basic uniform first, starting from my feet to my head, and THEN to worry about buying a musket, leathers, etc.

So, I started with a good pair of black brogans, good period wool socks, my sky-blue trousers, my "braces," then a four-button shirt, a four-button sack coat, then, at last, a good forage cap.

Once I had all of the above, I was lent a rifle, leathers, canteen, haversack, etc., until I could afford to buy those items. My unit took pride in the fact that we looked "real" and they were very strict about who fell in with them from other units at away reenactments. Safety was our primary concern, and then an authentic look, both in person and in camp.

I think units should be strict about who they let in, but they should also allow for growth, as the hobby does take quite a bit of cash to be fully done.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I'd agree that it is up to the unit that allows someone to fall in with them and the standard that they allow regardless of someone's "desire" to want to shoulder a musket and "bust some caps". This is why so many units split or the hardcore units formed their own organizations like the skulkers mess and others. If you don't like one units tolerance of farbisims then you formed your own where you could control it.

I also reenact WWII and on the set of "Saints and Soldiers" there was plenty of grumbling from the reenactor extras when some cousin of one of the actors was brought on set, dressed shabbily in greatcoat and helmet and stuck in a halftrack so he could get his 10 seconds of fame. We'd all spent good money to travel and then put our research and equipment to good use being soldiers when some joker pops up on set and wants to play too. There wasn't a thing to be said or done, it just was.

If you don't want to march next to the shabbily clad either change your unit's tolerance or find a new unit. You can't brow beat or shame them into not showing up or carrying a video camera around with them. You can only control you.

 

[deleson1]

seems to me this is a endless argument. JPFLYNN, when he started this post, was not arguing mainstream vs hard core reenactors, simply stating that people who have as lousy a impression{ i personally have never seen blue jeans, cowboy hat, and tennis shoes at a event} as this person portrayed have no business being in a reenactment. I personally can not figure out why that is even debateable.

 

[James B White]

seems to me this is a endless argument. JPFLYNN, when he started this post, was not arguing mainstream vs hard core reenactors, simply stating that people who have as lousy a impression{ i personally have never seen blue jeans, cowboy hat, and tennis shoes at a event} as this person portrayed have no business being in a reenactment. I personally can not figure out why that is even debateable.

Yet that's a common level of accuracy for historic costuming on volunteers at small-town living history presentations for festivals, historical societies or craft demonstrations. Blue jeans, a long-sleeved shirt, a cowboy hat and work boots are often good enough when demonstrating period crafts, driving horses, etc. I once had a spectator demand to take my picture, when I was dressed like that just walking down the road as a spectator at a festival, because she assumed I was in period costume, since I looked like all the other costumed people.

How could I get those people to stop dressing like that, and wear more accurate reproductions of the era they're portraying? I'd have to convince thousands of people they're not good enough to do what they apparently enjoy, when they already have the approval of their similarly-dressed peers. Attempting that kind of thing is where the stereotype of the angry, nasty hardcore comes from.

It's almost impossible to tell other people what they should do at events they're putting on or at which they have the organizer's approval. It's much easier to support events that already require the minimum standards that one wants.

 

[Pvt.A.Wells]

The thing is 9 times out of 10. It is not a new reenactor that is the problem. I have seen this kind of mindset with the typical bottom feeding powderburner. Really it is up to the event organizers. Helping THEM to understand, and working ans supporting thier efforts to put into play, standards for the event, and then helping them make those standards stick. Doing so will do two things. One is to keep everyone like Jpflynn and others happy, and the other is to either keep out the riff-raff, or nudge them into building up to the minimum standard if they want to participate in said event.

And yes, I have seen these deplorable things at a event. However, as I said, it is the fault of the event organizers, and we the reenactors if we allow it to continue by supporting that event. Either help the event organizers to set a minimum standard and work with them, or vote with your feet, and not support the event.

S.D.Swart, citizen, soldier, sailor.

 

[phil1861]

I'm not sure we can avoid not talking about hardcores vs farbs in this context. You can't control whom you have no authority over and we witnessed this at Shiloh with the two competing events. I've reenacted with the AoT (combined with them at the 135th Chickamauga with the AoP) and they are a great bunch and are/were (it's been a few years for me) dedicated to authenticity in how they behaved on and off the scripted battlefield. But, that is why there were two events because people can't control how someone is going to show up with their brother in tow wearing whatever.

You either are inclusive and get numbers or you're exclusive and you don't get numbers. But there will always be the southern outlaw Josie Wales or the northern infantryman wearing riding boots at any inclusive event.

At the 135th Gettysburg myself and three others fell in with a Connecticut unit because they were to be posted at the Angle for the Pickett's Charge scenario. They had a guy who changed into civies between each battle and lolled about camp. You go with whom you can and you keep your mouth shut when you're under another groups aegis like this. You keep your own kit in order and present the best possible image of an infantryman you can and when you get to immerse yourself with comrades who hold your own level of authenticity you enjoy that just as much as well.

 

[deleson1]

Yet that's a common level of accuracy for historic costuming on volunteers at small-town living history presentations for festivals, historical societies or craft demonstrations. Blue jeans, a long-sleeved shirt, a cowboy hat and work boots are often good enough when demonstrating period crafts, driving horses, etc. I once had a spectator demand to take my picture, when I was dressed like that just walking down the road as a spectator at a festival, because she assumed I was in period costume, since I looked like all the other costumed people.

How could I get those people to stop dressing like that, and wear more accurate reproductions of the era they're portraying? I'd have to convince thousands of people they're not good enough to do what they apparently enjoy, when they already have the approval of their similarly-dressed peers. Attempting that kind of thing is where the stereotype of the angry, nasty hardcore comes from.

It's almost impossible to tell other people what they should do at events they're putting on or at which they have the organizer's approval. It's much easier to support events that already require the minimum standards that one wants.

James, all I can tell you is what happened it reenacting. In the 60's I was told many reenactors wore what you are describing. But a few started wearing more appropriate things, others began to follow. Sutlers started putting out better gear. Units raised their standards and things kept on getting better. Is reenacting perfect,far from it, but for the most part it is at least passable. If you do some of them festivals, craft demonstrations, ect, in period attire I am sure you will get much more attention than the rest and I would suspect others would notice and try to improve.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I'm not a reenactor (thought about reenacting the Battle of Mobile Bay once, but decided I couldn't tread water that long), but as someone with an eye for detail, I always appreciate those who have made a sincere attempt at accuracy.

I think there's a difference between the ones who are trying hard but may not have the funds to have gotten it all together, and those who could swing it financially but just don't care. To the former, I offer encouragement, and to the latter... well, I offer some more encouragement to the former.

 

[Bonny Blue Flag]

Elaine, you have put into words the very things I hold most dear.

Thank you so much!!

--BBF

 

[Delhi Rangers]

i just want to vent here for a second.. You guys know what i hate? i hate when people wear modern boots and tennisshoes while reenacting, or wears levis and a regular belt. or cowboy hats etc... I spend a great amount to ensure that my uniform and my appearance portrays what a solder during the ACW looked like.. Why is it fair to the guys who spend thousands on their uniform to have some half dressed fool marching beside him in jeans and tennishoes? kinda erks me a little.. Thanks for reading..

Maybe it's time to re-think or re-examine the events that you are attending if you are seeing those types of things. There are plenty of good events and good units out there. Go to one or two of the good events and you won't regret it. Plenty of good units and events listed here: http://authentic-campaigner.com/

 

[deleson1]

If "family oriented" is code for "fairly low standards," then from personal experience, I don't find that to be true, as shown by all the events which set standards higher than "family oriented" and have no problem meeting their attendance goals.

There is a point at which standards can be set too high to reach minimum necessary participation levels, causing the cancellation of an event, but before someone says that all events must have "family oriented" standards, I'd suggested attending a few that don't, and see if the numbers really do seem too small.

Speaking from the Michigan area events, over the years I have never seen events lose people due to raising standards, however, I have seen several events that refused to raise standards dropped from units schedules and the events closed down.

 

[unicornforge]

If "family oriented" is code for "fairly low standards," then from personal experience, I don't find that to be true, as shown by all the events which set standards higher than "family oriented" and have no problem meeting their attendance goals.....

By Family Oriented I mean that there are tents, women and children in camp, especially women in camp who are not camp followers (specifically cooks, washerwoman and General Hookers ladies), iron cooking tripods, iron tent stakes, iron cooking grills, iron flag holders and other ironware that did not exist in the 19th century, non-period furniture, none of the officers especially generals and general staff on horseback, blacksmiths with 20th century technology blower/rivet forges, cannons without limbers or horses/outriders, cannons without caissons (again, without horses and outriders), horseless or events with only a handful of horses, participants that can't make or repair *any* of their own equipment, participants who have little if any clue about period technology, battles that mainly involve two groups standing across a field and simply shooting at each other, cannons moved on and off the field using modern vehicles, etc.

Do all of these fall into your description of "fairly low standards" or are some of these acceptable to you?