Historical Reality?

[amweiner]

Which Logan's Run are we referring to, the 21 or 30 age of renewal

I only remember the age 30 cutoff.

The hobby has to change one way or the other, but it needs to still striv3 for historical accuracy.

My take would be that the hobby can encourage historical accuracy. I contend that those of us who care for the hobby want better fidelity to historical accuracy. The hobby itself needs behinds in the seats, so to speak. Aside from the politicization of reenacting - both with modern stigma as well as organizational stuff - one reason I think people move away from the hobby is that there's a long list of "have-to's" and not as much showing people how they benefit from it.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

All other things aside, it's not hard to imagine the confusion and frustration from people with an interest in American history who aren't white males 16-35 who hear "respect my heritage" and "you can't participate" coming from the same place.

Let me put it more clearly...let's say a white male has been part of a group with his family since he was a child. Are we really saying he is required to have white (or at least "white looking") children in order to continue to participate in the same way with his old group? "Sure, your kids and wife can join but they have to be our servants and musicians?" If that option isn't acceptable to him, are we suggesting his parents or siblings also leave that group and form another?

 

[grace]

All other things aside, it's not hard to imagine the confusion and frustration from people with an interest in American history who aren't white males 16-35 who hear "respect my heritage" and "you can't participate" coming from the same place.

Let me put it more clearly...let's say a white male has been part of a group with his family since he was a child. Are we really saying he is required to have white (or at least "white looking") children in order to continue to participate in the same way with his old group? "Sure, your kids and wife can join but they have to be our servants and musicians?" If that option isn't acceptable to him, are we suggesting his parents or siblings also leave that group and form another?

Or do us ladies have to be *blush camp followers (I got asked this already, ugh) or say we are married if we are near the camps...?

I think I'm going to try to "pass" as any one of the half-dozen ethnic groups I belong to...as I create my story. My sweetheart (a Union corporal and a direct descendent) is giving me a hand to create a semi-plausible story. It involves my father bringing home an Asian wife...

Thank you all for the different opinions and thoughts. It's been very informative.

 

[grace]

(as an aside, the "camp follower" comment was said when my sweetheart was not around and between him and the rest of my group, it probably won't come again.)

 

[Camp Randall Armory]

In my opinion, we should always try and be a facsimile of what we are trying to represent. The fact of the matter is in 1861, if you were discovered to be a women in the ranks you were discharged. If you were African-American in the Confederacy you were not allowed to carry a weapon and fight in the line. Those are facts. If you were old, you were not discharged as long as you could keep up. If you were a racial minority (other than African-American) you had no problem. Fact is there were indeed older men and minority and such that served as Soldiers. This is a fact, it can be proven. This is where I draw the line, among other things. If the reenactor is older, but knows his drill, can live out of his knapsack, march 10 miles a day, and still have enough energy for picket duty, he's fine by me. If you're an all-women cannon crew, sorry, let's look for a better impression for you.
I know many mainstream units are loosing numbers so they have relaxed standards. Truth is more progressive units still maintain high standards and are doing just fine, because working hard to get your impression right is what drives our groups.

 

[Patrick H]

I'm not a reenactor.

With that disclaimer out of the way I would not find a black female reenacting a Union captain any less realistic than 50 year old obese white men playing privates in either army.

Reenactments are already highly unrealistic and very few reenactors actually look like the people they're portraying. Most are older and considerably less fit.

Why draw the realism line at race or gender? Seems rather arbitrary, from my outsider's point of view.

I agree completely.

 

[WJC]

Or do us ladies have to be *blush camp followers (I got asked this already, ugh) or say we are married if we are near the camps...?

Although often used as a euphemism for prostitutes, the term 'camp follower' has a wider meaning: any civilian who follows a military unit to attend or exploit military personnel. So for example, a Suttler might be called a 'camp follower'.

 

[Brendan]

In this case I believe it's called authenticity. This whole thread makes me glad I've retired from reenacting.

Authenticity is key! And with modern technology, we could easily run blood tests to make sure the genetic composition of the reenactors is on par with the people they're portraying. As a half Italian with partial Middle Eastern ancestry, I might be screwed though. Maybe should we only exclude people based on how ethnic they appear? Because in that case, I'm white as they come. Easily passable for a classic mayo-lovin Alabama Anglo. But then...who would get to decide that? Would the judgment call be part of the regular enforcement of authenticity guidelines or could we appoint some sort of Race Judge to preside over who's white enough to participate? The restriction might be tough to communicate in advance in the guidelines, so maybe the leadership could decide upon a specific pantone # to be the threshold and then they could hold up paint swatches to everyone's skin when they line up for review. Then again, if true authenticity is what you're striving for, you could just go by the old "mulatto" codes and quiz all reenactors about their parents' and grandparents' racial composition.

Why did we have this old war we're portraying again? I think it had something to do with tariffs...

 

[TaylorGarms]

As a young girl, my playmates were my brother and his neighborhood chummies. Soldiers of the World, GI Joes, and little green army men comprised our toys of choice. We huddled behind the city well building to dodge imaginary bullets, and mock hand-to-hand fights, to which I was entirely unequal, weren't uncommon.

Goodness, I even still have a retired military jacket in my closet.

Though playing "soldier" was fun, and as appealing reenacting is, for the sake of "historical reality" I willingly put aside the itch. Yeah, sure, women chopped their hair, geared up, and enlisted, so I could feasibly don an uniform in the name of history. But I'd rather let a more accurate portrayal roam the battlefields.

It's a choice to put aside personal whims and promote a factual representation. (DISCLAIMER: I'M FULLY AWARE THAT OLD, OUT-OF-SHAPE MEN HARDLY REPRESENT THE NORM EITHER. PET PEEVE THERE—BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE A TAD MORE AUTHENTIC.) I have nothing against women (shoot, I'm a woman myself) or other ethnicities. But why can't we just be okay with saying, "Nah, I don't have to do this. Just because I can doesn't mean I should. Authenticity is more important than what I want to do."

The points made in this thread are intriguing, because the question is, How far do we go? Naturally, it's primarily a hobby. But hey: How well does Thomas the Tank Engine fit in a model of the Pennsylvania Railroad?

Food for thought...

 

[amweiner]

Authenticity is more important than what I want to do

And I keep coming back to the question, important to who?? This is where I'm asking for opinion, not suggesting there's a "right or wrong" answer.

Who is the authenticity for? Us (as reenactors/former reenactors/living historians/etc) or John Q. Public?

 

[E_just_E]

Realistically:

Trying to depict the events that happened in Gettysburg in a place close to but not the actual battlefield, with about 1/100o the people who were there, is make belief/role playing and not reenacting the battle of Gettysburg, no matter how non-farb the garb.

If anyone from any race and culture wants to play why not let them? It is not the least non-authentic thing about the event, esp. written in the same post with complaining about the lack of port-a-potties

Gee.

 

[Camp Randall Armory]

So why not let a woman protray Lincoln? Why not have a white man protray USCT? Why not have a black man show up as Robert E. Lee? It seems some of you would be fine with that because "anyone can be anything they want"

 

[E_just_E]

So why not let a woman protray Lincoln? Why not have a white man protray USCT? Why not have a black man show up as Robert E. Lee? It seems some of you would be fine with that because "anyone can be anything they want"

If a 60 year old, 5'8", 250 lb white male, driving an F-250 to the battlefield for the hour, can play a civil war soldier, why not the rest indeed?

A black man playing Hamilton, opened more minds methinks, than the aforementioned re-enactor.

Why not a black woman playing General Lee?

 

[Legion Para]

This whole thread makes me glad I've retired from reenacting.

James N. may have the right idea.

 

[Burning Billy]

If a 60 year old, 5'8", 250 lb white male, driving an F-250 to the battlefield for the hour, can play a civil war soldier, why not the rest indeed?

A black man playing Hamilton, opened more minds methinks, than the aforementioned re-enactor.

Why not a black woman playing General Lee?

My thoughts exactly.

The authenticity line seems to be rather arbitrarily drawn.

If a unit bans women or minorities from playing soldiers, does it also ban white men who are too old and/or fat for the role they're playing? That question is rhetorical because I've been to enough events to suspect it does not, despite the 50 year old who is 250 lbs being significantly older than the average civil war soldier (26 years old in federal armies) and probably about a 100 pounds heavier. (143 pounds I believe)

Fat old white men are no more authentic as civil war soldiers than women or minorities, even if their uniforms and gear are perfect other than the large waist lines. If you can suspend disbelief for the privates in your unit that are rotund and geriatric, you should also be able to do it for women and minorities.

 

[UCVRelics]

We don't have these problems at the OTHER MAJOR "burg" Vicksburg. Just sayin

 

[TaylorGarms]

Why not a black woman playing General Lee?

But...why? How would that open someone's mind, and to what? Seriously, I'm curious.

 

[E_just_E]

But...why? How would that open someone's mind, and to what? Seriously, I'm curious.

Why not? That is the point. Apparently the reenacting "community" has opened up its collective mind as far as "age" and "size" goes, allowing white males who do not fit those criteria to participate. Apparently it opened up its mind as far as modern creature comforts go (running water, electricity, toilets.)

Gender and race for some reason still seem to have stayed in the 1860s. And women and non-white people are excluded based on some sort of a sad self serving "realism" excuse.

Lee was 54-59 years old in the Civil War, about 5-10 and 170 lbs.

If white males who do not fit those criteria can represent him "realistically", so should non-white, non males.

It is simple: It is make belief. Let anyone be who they want to be. Barney would approve

 

[Drew]

I agree, and when a black woman in butternut leads her boys on with a Rebel yell I am sure you will feel exactly the same.

Ten bucks says she rolls the Yankee line...

 

[TaylorGarms]

Why not? That is the point. Apparently the reenacting "community" has opened up its collective mind as far as "age" and "size" goes, allowing white males who do not fit those criteria to participate. Apparently it opened up its mind as far as modern creature comforts go (running water, electricity, toilets.)

Gender and race for some reason still seem to have stayed in the 1860s. And women and non-white people are excluded based on some sort of a sad self serving "realism" excuse.

Lee was 54-59 years old in the Civil War, about 5-10 and 170 lbs.

If white males who do not fit those criteria can represent him "realistically", so should non-white, non males.

It is simple: It is make belief. Let anyone be who they want to be. Barney would approve

Donated my Barney videos to a thrift store long ago.

I guess this isn't my battle to fight, as I don't reenact. But standing on this side, I think such a blatant misrepresentation of history is a travesty. I guess I'm pretty shocked at the amount of women reenactors in these photos. Not the ones in petticoats—but in uniform. Far cries from Francis Clayton and Sarah Edmonds Seelye. Pudgy old men do realistically personify a sizable portion of Civil War soldiers, whilst a 60-year old woman with a musket doesn't cut the mustard.

For the sake of reality and honoring those who are represented, we should strive toward authenticity. And why not? But, hey, whatever: It's not my hobby. It's my history, but not my hobby. My teenaged brother, though, has saved over 1k to invest in reenacting gear. Someday, when he's past this crazy growth spurt, he's going to buy a uniform of blue, and I'll encourage him to wear spectacles instead of contacts, for the sake of authenticity.

*bows out of conversation for now, having invested more than two cents*