We have mainstream, CPH, Progressive, hardcore, and whatever the label of the month is. We, the reenactors, are hurting the hobby by running a class war on who does it right. One has to look at Gettysburg this coming year to see a divide in the hobby. Throwing out words like farby, hardcore, who does it really help. It only does one thing in my mind,---------- piss me off. Nobody likes to be called something they don't think they are. These labels have to go, they may make one feel better by what they proceed to be, but we are all heading in the right direction. As our numbers shrink our manners and how we treat this hobby should improve. Labels hurt peoples feelings, we as a whole need to improve the hobby by improving our written word on the computer and our vocal one at events. We will never agree on everything but one thing we all need to improve on is our approach to each other. Those that know more will always know more, nature of the beast. Those that try will always try. They may not be the brightest star but they try. We as a hobby can reach for the sky, somewhere in between is the landing.

Always
Doug Thomas
Lyons Battery
1st. Ky. Vols. CS
Kentucky  

--Last edited by captdougofky on 2007-11-23 14:50:41 --

Well, Captain Doug, for the little it's worth, I agree.  I don't have any use for labels myself, except maybe for the entertainment value of watching folks try to define them.  

I seldom see labels applied to other camps except as a sort of put-down.  

And when people label themselves, I've decided it really doesn't tell me a lot about their knowledge and understanding of America in the middle of the 19th century.

For that, you have to check their penmanship.  

As long as someone thinks they do it better than someone else, there are going to be labels. That goes for just about every other hobby or endeavour.  The trick, at least as far as I'm concerned, is to consider the source of the labeling.

Not that it matters a hill of beans, but the only one I have to impress is myself. I ain't losing sleep or upping my blood-pressure over what someone I've never seen or met thinks. There's too many important things in the world going on.

Mark
5 post and five hundred read. You care enough about this hobby to post. I did not think these forums meant much but now I know. Mr. Anders post, AoT post, Mr. Cooper and others who do so much for reenacting post on the various forums. Let those who think different not be forgotten. Its our hobby too.

Always
Doug Thomas
Kentucky

Quote :

captdougofky wrote :  We are all heading in the right direction.

Doug,

No we aren't. Some people are happy with what they've been doing for years and see no reason to change. I was just talking to a person who attended a Mainstream event as a spectator. She saw coolers sitting around, a women talking on a cell phone, and various other sins. I've seen the same things myself. It doesn't matter how well you or your unit hides anachronisms or how careful you are around spectators. We, being the cots and coolers crowd, are going to get painted with the brush of the lowest common demoninator. As long as we allow those folks, who refuse to improve, define the Mainstream side of the Hobby, we are going to be the subject of ridicule by people who are trying to do better.

How many times have you been to an event, looked over at the camp next door and just shook your head at what you were seeing? Most events have rules about staying in period clothing during the event. Ever see some women cooking breakfast while wearing a sweat suit? I have.

We are all guilty of turning our backs on things we know are just wrong because we don't want to make waves. Until we demand that the rules of the events we attend get enforced, we deserve what the more authentic wing of the Hobby says about us.

I hate labels as much as anyone. For proof, just read my posts on other threads. But, too often the labels fit.  

Bill,

Did you just use a label??

Tsk, tsk.    

Chawls, Bill can say that because he's probably been there and actually talked to those folks.  I don't think you get to claim this as a validation because, FWIW, it's a substantially more human act than slamming them behind their backs on the fora.  

--Last edited by Bill on 2007-11-23 21:28:17 --

Bill also mentioned "But, too often, the labels fit."

Most of what he describes in his post doesn't sound like mainstreamers at a mainstream event, but farbs at a farbfest. An old friend of mine, who was an essential element in the Progressive Movement, used to say "Momma on the company street doesn't have to look like she just stepped out of Trailer Park Quarterly." He had a point.

I'm planning on enjoying my visit with Doug and his artillery comrades at GAC'burg come July. Will it be a farbfest? Will it magically transform itself into a mainstream event? High hopes for the 135th Anniversary event were quickly shattered by reality, if history is any indication.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : Bill, Did you just use a label??

Charles,

Yep, My bad.  

Quote :

captdougofky wrote : Those that know more will always know more, nature of the beast. Those that try will always try. They may not be the brightest star but they try.

The following can be taken as a slam on certain "types" of reenactors, but it's meant as a generic comment.

Your above statement reminds me of something I tell school children, mainly middle and high schoolers:

Definitions:
Dumb:  I can't learn.  It's not possible for me to learn.  No matter how hard I try, it is just not possible.

Ignorant:  I don't know.  I haven't been shown it yet.  I haven't learned it yet.  If you show me how, I can learn it.

Stupid:  I won't learn.  You can't make me learn.  I simply refuse to learn.

I know very few people in the first catagory.  I know lots of folks in the second.  Everyone is ignorant on many subjects, and well versed on a few.

I've known a number of those in the third.  I try to avoid them. They can be dangerous both in society and in the hobby.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : Most of what he describes in his post doesn't sound like mainstreamers at a mainstream event, but farbs at a farbfest.

Charles,

No Charles, what I discribed is what happens at too many events. There is a wide range of reenacting styles and interests. Damn few people fit into any nice neat categories and neither do events. Whatever their reenacting style, most reenactors obey the rules of the events they attend. But there is a minority who figure the rules are for everybody but them. The bigger the event, the more likely there will be folks not playing by the rules. Most events have gotten better with the big items, like cars in camp. It's much more difficult for event sponsors to enforce the "little stuff" that happens in the camps. That's really up to the participants themselves.

I sure wouldn't lable an event where ninty percent of the participants were playing by the rules a "Farbfest". The problem is that other ten percent gives lots of ammunition to the folks who are into negative labels.

The one big advantage the more authentic events have is they tend to have much smaller numbers. It's far easier to get a group of 300 who all have more or less the same vision of the event, than 3,000, all with the same vision.  

--Last edited by Bill on 2007-11-24 02:30:51 --

Bill,

I was trying to be nice about it.    Imagine the participants who thought they were going to a mainstream event, only to see the samo-samo elments of the farbfest they thought they'd left behind at the "battle of something local."  

When the late Duke Culberson and I were the inspectors for Doug and Chris' FOTM2000, I was impressed with the number of people who "got it," as well as the sump at the end of a dead end road for some folks who weren't going to get it no matter what.  I remember writing some good comments about that event, perhaps too good (if you'd been there in 1997, you'd understand the quantum leap that event took in three years), and was more than a bit dismayed when the event took a beating about a week afterwards.  The reason for the latter was a failure to manage expectations.  This is something common for all six classifications, believe it or not.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : Bill, A failure to manage expectations.  This is something common for all six classifications, believe it or not.

Charles,

This is something we agree on. I sometimes think event rules are written by lawyers, rather than reenactors. Sensible, and more important, enforcable rules and guidelines would reduce people's over expectations for the events they attend.

Of course, there are folks who'll attend an event like Cedar Creek and then complain about it. Like seeing the Indain and the Bagpiper is a big surprise! Cedar Creek is what it is. If you enjoy that type of event, go and enjoy yourself. If not, stay away. Let's be honest, if events go on for years and years, and don't change much, they are most likely meeting the needs of their target audience.

Another issue is the various expectations and opinions held by event organizers, reenactors, and spectators. It's to be expected that folks who go to the trouble to put on events are going to be protective of their events, no matter where they fall on the authenticity spectrum. They aren't likely to take a lot of criticism real kindly. Especially before the event even happens! It has never failed to amaze me how miserable the various factions within the more authentic wing of the Hobby can be to each other.

It would also be nice if people would remember, that with a few exceptions, events are put on by volunteers, who donate their time and effort to make an event a success. Sometimes things just go wrong and Murphy attends almost every event.

 

Let's say there's a reenacting world with no labels. There are several hundred events being held nationwide next year, and I need to narrow it down to eight or ten to attend. I want to find events with guidelines like I've enjoyed in the past (assuming the guidelines are enforced).

With no labels, how do I begin? It would take days to read all the guidelines of every event from Georgia to Missouri to New Jersey.

I can't ask people, "What xxxxx events do you know of that are coming up?" because xxxxx would inevitably be a label. It wouldn't work to say, "What events like October 62 are coming up that include civilians?" because maybe someone didn't attend October 62 and has no clue what I'm talking about, but did attend Matt & Brian's pre-trial event, which had basically the same guidelines, and if only I'd named that event, they'd understand. If the named event *was* so well known that it was used by everyone as a reference point, it would soon become a generic label for every event of its type, and we'd be back to labels again.

So if it's all about finding and attending events with guidelines you like, how can you find them in any efficient way, without labels?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Man oh man, we are getting deep on this one.  It could go on forever in debate.  But, I do agree with Hank.

Quote :

hanktrent wrote : So if it's all about finding and attending events with guidelines you like, how can you find them in any efficient way, without labels?

Hank,

I'd agree with you if we could come up with labels that everybody could agree on, except that ain't likely to happen in my lifetime. Your own discussion, over on the A-C Forum, of exactly what constitutes an immersion event, is a good example of the problem.

A label is only as good as the mindset and perception of the people using that label. And, as I said earlier, the labels seems to get used more as clubs, rather than for information.  

Personally I do not have an issue with labels.  At one time or another I might have been in two of those groups.  I think it does help to define the event.  My only issue is when the label is used as a weapon to insult a person or a group, part of the never-ending "us vs.. them" argument.  Right now I would define myself as Mainstream based on the unit I am with and the majority of events we attend.  I'm fine with that for now.  We have attended campaign style events and have done just fine.  We plan to more in the future.

I agree with Hank that it is easier to use the labels as a starting point to define the event.  After that it has to be based on the rules as well as who is putting it on.  I have seen great rules written but not enforced.  Knowing who is backing the event makes a big difference.  Well, just my thoughts...

Quote :

Bill wrote :   Hank, I'd agree with you if we could come up with labels that everybody could agree on, except that ain't likely to happen in my lifetime. Your own discussion, over on the A-C Forum, of exactly what constitutes an immersion event, is a good example of the problem. A label is only as good as the mindset and perception of the people using that label. And, as I said earlier, the labels seems to get used more as clubs, rather than for information.

Well, honestly, I think the "club" concept is part of the difficulty. Let's say someone hears about a type of event that sounds really cool, but it's intimidating and they don't really want to buckle down and meet the guidelines anyway because they don't see the point. So they co-opt the label and apply it to something that they think would be really cool, but isn't as intimidating or difficult as the original concept. Then they get to say, "Hey, I enjoy campaign, immersion, hardcore, authentic, whatever, events too."

To them, I'm sure it really does feel like a campaign event to camp in a city park all weekend without a tent, or hardcore to cook your own food instead of having the women do it, or whatever. Great!

But it's pretty close to using the label as a club, to claim that you're doing exactly what those other people are doing, without putting in the effort that they are.

And all of a sudden, as happened on the immersion thread discussion, the club is used to tell me I'm wrong for insisting that "immersion" also means immersion in the culture of the 1860s, and therefore, I've got no label left to refer to what used to be called immersion events. The club's been used to take away what a group of people once had as a useful term. I wonder how many reenactors are aware there used to be an immersionists' listserve and things like that?

Of course, those on the other side would say the term's being used as a club to prevent them from applying it to whatever they want. But why do they want a particular term, unless some meaning has already been invested in it by those who've already been using it?

It's normal for words' meaning to change, and it's why new ones need to keep being reinvented. I think "Hardcore" and "authentic" are falling from use, for example, and "immersion" is probably headed there. Who actually advertises an event as "hardcore" or "authentic" any more, even though the former is still included as one of the categories in c/p/h? Yet I can remember the day when you could talk about "hardcore" units or "authentic" events and there was enough agreement that it was a useful starting place to decide who to join or what to attend.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank, as usual you make a very thoughtful point, but from my perspective any slight benefit that a label offers is outweighed by its unreliability, as well as its tendency to mutate from an attempt at classification to a perjorative, rhetorical artifact, or signifier.

Beyond that, I can't honestly think of any time that a label on a website clearly told me what I needed to know about that event.  This ranges from the "authentics only" proscrïption I've seen on the Cedar Creek website, to the "semi-immersion" label I've seen on several history-intensive events. (Don't ask me what that means; I've no idea.)

A far better indication of the nature or quality of the event comes across in the guidelines and background information.  An event can call itself anything it wants, but if it notes "Bring at least 200 rounds of ammunition," offers an artillery bounty, and has a detailed schedule including a fashion show at the activities tent, I know that it will emphasize popular entertainment over a detailed, 48 hour experience of 19th century life.

Not that there's anything wrong with that -- I think I need that kind of event every now and then.

On the other hand, when the Columbia Rifles tells me I'll be inspected at the gate for my compliance with the attached 40 page event standard, that too speaks more eloquently than any label.

In fact, if the two events happen on the same weekend and a friend asks me which one they should go to, I'm much more likely to say, "Well, one wants you to bring 200 rounds and the other's going to check you out at the gate" than I am to call one mainstream and the other c/p/h because it doesn't take that much more breath to pick a key defining element, and I just feel silly using the standard labels.  And I don't want to put my friend in an awkward place by inferring that I think the first is inferior to the second.  It is or it isn't, depending on what you want to do that weekend.

Plus, I can't shake my visceral reaction to those labels.  Maybe I'd feel better about it if the classifications didn't always seem to be developed on one end of the hobby to be imposed on the whole.

Or maybe I'm just over-reacting.  

Maybe the real problem is that I've just been too lazy to come up with my own.

Now I've got it -- how about three broad categories:  Sharpie, Shaeffer, and Gillott...?

Thought,

Often labels or "like" descrïptions will suffice for events, but not for people.  People change, often event to event, be it their kit, their actions, or their camping style.

Hard to classify folks, but however, it is easier to classify events, IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE MISSION STATEMENT, OR LACK THEREOF.

That is key.

The Who, what and Why of an event should make it easy to classify.

In 2007 I organized 2 events in a 30 day window- September Storm and October 1862.

They were as different as day and night, and were meant to be so.  But many if not most of the participants at one were at the other.

So the events could be labeled, but the participants couldn't.

Does this make sense?

Pards,  

--Last edited by Anders on 2007-11-26 19:55:57 --