Historical Reality?

[grace]

As a side note, I will probably end up in a uniform as well at some point. *merry smile. I'm on the smaller and slighter side, so I could pull it off like the women did back then. Except my unit will know! *giggles.

(And in fact, they may be the ones telling me to be in uniform so that I can "properly" be in the camp)

At the end of the day, it's a spectrum of styles and tastes. And I think we can make a place for everyone.

 

[captaindrew]

As a side note, I will probably end up in a uniform as well at some point. *merry smile. I'm on the smaller and slighter side, so I could pull it off like the women did back then. Except my unit will know! *giggles.

(And in fact, they may be the ones telling me to be in uniform so that I can "properly" be in the camp)

At the end of the day, it's a spectrum of styles and tastes. And I think we can make a place for everyone.

Go for it, we have a couple girls in our bunch that from more than a few feet away look the part much better than some of the guys. They have the right build, have good gear, and know their drill. They are a great asset to the group as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Waterloo50]

I have given the original posting much thought over the past couple of days and read through the responses several times.

I strongly believe we are doing a great injustice by failing to portray our history accurately.

The idea of a black female officer leading an Infantry Company into battle at Gettysburg is absurd. No American female officer has ever lead a Ground unit into combat . Only recently have American female officers been assigned to Infantry units.

I'm okay with a female reenactor/living historian who wants to portray a known woman who served in the Civil War, but to do it randomly is wrong.

Most mainstream events, particularly national reenactments, historically leave a great deal to be desired. Smaller campaigner events are more accurate, rewarding and enjoyable for individuals seeking such.

If historical accuracy really matters to you @Redcoat, then I suggest you seriously consider joining a more progressive campaigner unit.

While there has been some research done on Asians during the American Civil War and books published, there is more to be done on this subject. I think its great that @grace is interested in Civil War and became a member of the forum. I am willing to help her any way I can. With that said, finding historically accurate roles to portray will be difficult.

***Note: Has anyone here taken a close look at @Redcoat's avatar?

View attachment 197032

Three men, all from New Brunswick, died while defending Little Round Top on July 2nd as members of the 20th Maine, including: Alexander Lester, age 18, Aaron Adams, age 27, and George Leach, age 25. In all, at least two dozen Canadians are known to have been killed or wounded as a result of the three days at Gettysburg.

View attachment 197033 View attachment 197033 View attachment 197033 View attachment 197033 View attachment 197033

I'd be more than happy to take my family to watch a re-enactment of any period providing that they post a massive disclaimer clearly stating that in no way is the historical period that they are re-enacting historically correct, I'm confused, many people find the old movies where white men played the part of native Americans offensive but it seems it's okay for a black woman to play the part of a union officer. It's extremely difficult given the current emphasis on political correctness to call out things like this without being accused of being racist or discriminatory but for me it's about historical accuracy. I agree with the fact that skin colour or ethnicity is for the most part irrelevant but when it alters or rewrites history then I have a big problem with it, I'd no sooner want to see a white man playing the part of the Zulu Chief Ntshingwayo than I would a black woman playing the part of Horatio Nelson. Re-enactments should in my humble opinion be all about portraying history as accurately as possible otherwise it's just a bunch of people running around a field playing soldiers and has zero bearing on historical reality.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

I'd be more than happy to take my family to watch a re-enactment of any period providing that they post a massive disclaimer clearly stating that in no way is the historical period that they are re-enacting historically correct, I'm confused, many people find the old movies where white men played the part of native Americans offensive but it seems it's okay for a black woman to play the part of a union officer. It's extremely difficult given the current emphasis on political correctness to call out things like this without being accused of being racist or discriminatory but for me it's about historical accuracy. I agree with the fact that skin colour or ethnicity is for the most part irrelevant but when it alters or rewrites history then I have a big problem with it, I'd no sooner want to see a white man playing the part of the Zulu Chief Ntshingwayo than I would a black woman playing the part of Horatio Nelson. Re-enactments should in my humble opinion be all about portraying history as accurately as possible otherwise it's just a bunch of people running around a field playing soldiers and has zero bearing on historical reality.

The difference is, she is not taking that "job" away from a white guy. Those white actors were taking jobs away from Native American actors. She is a volunteer who was elected to lead her unit by the members of that unit. She wasn't chosen to play a Native American over an actor whom wasn't even permitted to audition, despite being a member of the ethnicity being portrayed.

As a side note, I will probably end up in a uniform as well at some point. *merry smile. I'm on the smaller and slighter side, so I could pull it off like the women did back then. Except my unit will know! *giggles.

(And in fact, they may be the ones telling me to be in uniform so that I can "properly" be in the camp)

At the end of the day, it's a spectrum of styles and tastes. And I think we can make a place for everyone.

I was also planning on donning the uniform occasionally, it just looks like too much fun!

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

The difference is, she is not taking that "job" away from a white guy. Those white actors were taking jobs away from Native American actors.

Do our first graders learn differently when Sally reads the Gettysburg Address with a pasted on beard and top hat at the school play than when Billy does?

 

[PrivateBrooke]

Do our first graders learn differently when Sally reads the Gettysburg Address with a pasted on beard and top hat at the school play than when Billy does?

Being randomly assigned a part because your name was drawn from a hat is quite a bit different than not being selected due to prejudice, now isn't it?

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

The point I am trying to make is that all authenticity is extremely relative. Even the campaigner groups, many of them are still 20-30 lbs and 2-3 inches taller on average.

For the people who are attempting to be absolutely as authentic as possible, that's awesome. But their current standards exclude 90 percent of the hobby anyhow, which is why some of their largest events are dwarfed by some of the off weekend yawners here in the Midwest. I don't think this conversation is really about them.

For progressive groups, I really think it comes down to a matter of how long they want to last and how large they want to be. If they want to be able to hold battalion drill on a regular basis (as was authentic), they'll need to relax their standards or the hobby will continue to get smaller because the demographics won't be able to support them.

Mainstream groups, based on conversations I've had and what I've seen on here, are starting to get the idea. The hobby will continue to survive and possibly thrive if the main streamers become more inclusive.

A lot also depends on why you do it. I personally do it for education, both for myself and the public. I'm smart enough to know that even if I am out there shivering in the cold for three whole days, it doesn't come close to what they experienced, and it doesn't do me any better to do it machine sewn clothes or hand sewn. I can use my imagination. I also give the average person a lot of credit, as my interactions with the public have almost always been very positive. They can use their imagination as well. Even if all it takes is a quick "of course, women weren't allowed to enlist and serve in the open, but". It helps that I don't have a problem public speaking or teaching in a classroom. School visits go very smoothly.

If someone feels the need to do everything as authentically as they possibly can, that's fantastic too. I don't understand doing it to that extent of it, but I don't understand soccer either.

For the people who get out there and burn powder just for the heck of it, well...I don't know what to tell you, as that is foreign to me, but...the hobby as a whole should welcome your safety minded behind, as well.

Not to rant, but..

 

[Waterloo50]

The difference is, she is not taking that "job" away from a white guy. Those white actors were taking jobs away from Native American actors. She is a volunteer who was elected to lead her unit by the members of that unit. She wasn't chosen to play a Native American over an actor whom wasn't even permitted to audition, despite being a member of the ethnicity being portrayed.

With respect, the objections raised were never just about employment, the casting of white actors in ethnic roles was what people objected to, it was a clear cut case of institutional racism. At no point did I argue that a black woman playing the part of a union officer had deprived or prevented anyone else from taking that role. If I'm incorrect and there were female black officers during the civil war then that's fair enough let's see that portrayed in reenactments.