PDA

View Full Version : Why do we argue



Levi Battery
01-31-2007, 11:19 AM
Being new to the re-enacting game in this area. There is one ongoing trend that I donít understand. Why is there so much fighting between us? I mean not only the men but the ladies also.

Youíve got the farbs, thread counters, want-a-beís and so on. They all have on thing in common. They argue between each other or other units. They argue to the point that they want even go the same events.

One unit does not like the other unit or one person does not like the other so in turn, they wonít will play well with others.

We may not have the same political opinions, drive the same cars, make the same money or like the same music. Thatís human nature but donít we like re-enacting. So whatís the problem? If Lee and Grant could sign and come to a equitable peace accord, canít we?

Have we not lost sight of what we are there for? Do you think those veterans are turning over in their graves?

Just wondering

ejazzyjeff
01-31-2007, 11:54 AM
Any hobby or activity which you participate in, has the bickering, and the us against them. I have seen quite a few post here on the forum trying to find answers to questions that can never be answered. People just have different levels of opinions on how we should represent the Civil War. I just stay out of them and enjoy what I am doing.


If Lee and Grant could sign and come to a equitable peace accord, canít we?

I believe it would be a cold day in you-know-where before this would happen:p

hanktrent
01-31-2007, 11:59 AM
Have we not lost sight of what we are there for?

I think it's just the opposite. Reenactors argue because they do know what they're there for. At events, they want to follow their own passion, with the support of others, without being told the way they do it is wrong, not wanted, etc.

While there are some personality conflicts that keep people apart as always in life, there are a lot of reenactors who don't go to one event or another primarily because that event prevents them from doing what they enjoy, by setting the historical guidelines either too high or too low.

"Reenacting" is as broad an interest as "music," and if you can appreciate that people have different tastes in music, it's the same thing. Different approaches to reenacting are as different as heavy metal and classical music, and if the heavy metal fans are expected to discuss music with the classical music fans, there's no way they'll agree.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

huntdaw
01-31-2007, 01:43 PM
If Lee and Grant could sign and come to a equitable peace accord, canít we?

If memory serves me right, it seems there was a bit of fighting before anything like this came about.

flattop32355
01-31-2007, 01:50 PM
....be any different from the real world? Here, all the usual human foibles and flaws are just seen in microcosm, and so are more glaring. But there is little difference here than in any other hobby, job, society, etc.

It just pisses us off more here, because we're all supposed to be of a common goal (??) and on the same page.

If you remove all the human elements from the hobby, we'll all get along just fine.

Justin Runyon
01-31-2007, 03:29 PM
That's just it Bernard, we are not of a common goal. As I have alluded to in the past, what was once a single hobby or past time has evolved into two very different things completely. These two pursuits (lets not label them or sing the priases of one over another) are based in entirely different goals and mindsets. We don't call these arguments us vs. us fights, we call them us vs. them. Clearly we are not the same pursuit as we once were. Comparing the two different hobby paradigms is an apples and oranges issue. These sorts of arguments are about as effective as a model railroader arguing with a guy who plays golf.

MStuart
01-31-2007, 03:50 PM
Comparing the two different hobby paradigms is an apples and oranges issue. These sorts of arguments are about as effective as a model railroader arguing with a guy who plays golf.

And the arguements usually begin when one "side" denigrates the other, which begins the usual, and, all too frequent urinating contests. IF (and that's a big one) we could each stay out of the other's business, quit worrying about what the "other guy" is doing, quit trying to force my way, your way, another guy's way onto others, and concentrate on OURSELVES, I submit that we'd have a drastic decrease in those contests.

Also true is your contention that they do absolutely no good.

Is it all "human nature"? Probably. Still doesn't make it right.

Mark

Spare_Man
01-31-2007, 04:34 PM
Read the history of the war and look at all the infighting between officers in the same army... between officer and enlisted... between regulars and volunteers... between fresh fish and veterans...

There were fist-fights galore in camps filled with bored men...

Fellow prisoners-of-war preying on each other...

Even seemingly innocent snowball fights often turned bloody...

And so we "fight" amongst ourselves, but we do it a little different. We mostly throw barbs at one-another and only simulate firing weapons at one-another.

Anyone remember what the country was like after 9/11? We all came together for a few brief weeks before we started the petty bickering again. Contrast that with how on the way into a big battle the men would cease their bickering and after the battle would forget about what they had been fighting about.

We are as human as the men and women we portray. Try to cope with the argueing by just thinking of it as a "soldier's fight." We don't really hate each other as much as it might seem sometimes.

tompritchett
01-31-2007, 05:31 PM
These sorts of arguments are about as effective as a model railroader arguing with a guy who plays golf.

I personally think it is more like a fly fisherman who fishs for the experience as much as anything else arguing with the cane pole and bobber/live bait fisherman who is just fishing to take fish home to eat. Same hobby with radically different goals. Interestingly enough, in that sport you also have participants whose pursuit of the hobby ranges from those two extremes and who may on any given trip have different goals than the trip before.

flattop32355
01-31-2007, 10:49 PM
That's just it Bernard, we are not of a common goal.


If you look reaaaaallllly carefully after that statement of mine, you'll see two question marks in parentheses, which reflects a casting of doubt upon whether the statement can really be considered fully accurate.

Both (All?) sides of the hobby do share some common goals. They do not, however, commonly share all goals.

Our tendency to focus upon the differences, rather than some of those common goals, is what leads us into the eternal battle of US vs THEM. While all members of the hobby may never reach the point of hand holding, it would be nice if we could at least get past the point of poking each other with sharp instruments.

Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

WestTN_reb
02-01-2007, 12:45 AM
The only way I can think of to turn things around is to eliminate the one thing that everyone on either side of the argument seem to be unwilling to let go of. EGO. It is the biggest problem of them all. One side is convinced they're right and won't back down, and the other side considers themselves the victim and won't let go. Myself, I sit firmly on the center rail of the fence and think to myself, "Four years of high school childishness was enough."

Brian Wolle
02-01-2007, 01:30 AM
No two people are ever going to agree completely. What's to do? Go off and play by yourself?

There are units (I've been in at least two of them) whereby they say no politics and it happens. The officers "shield" the men from it from up above and they do things democratically within the unit. If you disagree that much, go ahead and leave.

Yes, the war started because people disagreed. Plenty people still have a problem with many aspects of it. Just last week, a friend of mine, dressed as a Confed, was chased out of town because he wore a blue vest. This was in RICHMOND.

After thirty years, I still love it for what it does and what it tries to do.

There's plenty of room for us all. -with all our opinions intact.
Hope to see you on the field

Justin Runyon
02-01-2007, 02:31 AM
I personally think it is more like a fly fisherman who fishs for the experience as much as anything else arguing with the cane pool and boober/live bait fisherman who is just fishing to take fish home to eat. Same hobby with radically different goals. Interestingly enough, in that sport you also have participants who pursuit of the hobby range from those two extremes and who may on any given trip have different goals than the trip before.

Tom, that's a fine analogy as well.

TheBaldYankee
02-01-2007, 05:36 AM
Any hobby or activity which you participate in, has the bickering, and the us against them.

So very true. Most of my life I've had a fascination with ghosts. When I started getting heavier into it I discovered that the infighting between all the different paranormal research groups is insane. It makes the mainstream vs. c/p/h stuff look like a day at the park.

For awhile I sang in a hard rock band. My band never really got into any shananigans, because we were just out to have a good time and play cover songs mostly. But, you should see how bands go at each other.

Sometimes I think the fights are a product of jealousy. For instance... Many paranormal groups hate the guys in TAPS(Ghosthunters, on Sci Fi) because they have a TV show.

A band will hate another band because the draw a bigger crowd.

Sometimes guys are just jerks and think they're better.

No matter what the reasons it's silly. But, look through human history. It's full of "my way is better than your way". The BIG difference in these hobbies is that it doesn't turn into a war. Well, maybe a war of words, but that's about it.

HighPrvt
02-01-2007, 06:37 AM
As has been stated before this goes on in every hobby, actually it usually remains more civil (pardon the pun) in this hobby than in many others, for instance try visiting some gun boards, or political boards. These "discussions" usually crop up during winter, so I'm chocking most of it up to boredom.

Real world attitude seems to come mostly from the mainstream side of the hobby, or at least that has been my experience. Usually from the guys whose wives won't let them have any fun so their jealous, or idiots citing some "stitch counting" BS they they heard about from their pards, etc.

ThumbStall
02-01-2007, 09:52 AM
The hobby that I think most closely resembles the attitudes and factions of reeneactors are the skateboarderss and in-line skaters. They can be broken down into these groups:

1) Skate Wannabees (we would call these guys farbs because they don't use the "right" gear or wear the "right" clothing. They are usually clueless newbies. The hobby is fun for them but it's finer nuances are a mystery.)

2) Recreational Skaters (what we would call "mainstream." They skate for fun. It's just a hobby to enjoy, not to live by. To some extent they overlap with "wannabees." Mostly the recreational skaters end up adopting a "zen" toward the sport, distance themselves from the BS, and rise above all the infighting, doing what they want and are content. They are the backbone of the sport and make up the vast majorty, just like mainsteamers within our hobby. When the world thinks of skaters, they think of these guys.)

2) Posers (in our hobby they are called "hardkewls." They can't cut the moves like the real extreme skaters can, so instead they talk the talk, they wear the "right" gear, but mostly they stand around and look cool while ridiculing everyone esle. They are universally detested.)

3) Aggro Skaters (aggro is short for "aggressive" skaters.. these are the extremists. These guys are what we'd call hardcore campaigners. To them it is more than a sport, it is a lifestyle. They put all their spare cash into the sport. These guys want to be professional extreme skaters some day, to get paid for busting the extreme moves. Many are called, few are chosen.)

All of these groups within the sport are constantly fighting with one-another, look down on one-another, envy one-another. Sounds familiar, eh?

CivilWarBuff1863
02-01-2007, 10:16 AM
Yes, the war started because people disagreed. Plenty people still have a problem with many aspects of it. Just last week, a friend of mine, dressed as a Confed, was chased out of town because he wore a blue vest. This was in RICHMOND.

The nerve of some people huh? Just because someone wears a little blue vest doesn't mean they have to take things seriously. I mean what's the deal here? After Lincoln was assassinated the South was angry at J.W. Booth and some of them did mourn for Lincoln. Then almost 100 years later we have the Civil Rights movements and that sparked alot of stuff and it left 2 prominant people dead: Martin Luther King Jr. & Robert F. Kennedy. With alot of debating still going on I wonder: Who will be next in line to get killed over something as simple as the freedom of speech and freedom? Freedom isn't free unless you look at it from the other side of the tracks.

Union Navy
02-01-2007, 10:51 AM
This whole discussion reminds me of two gems of wisdom I heard elsewhere:

The pirates don't start killing each other until they have the treasure.
We must feel we have arrived and have most of what we want, or we wouldn't be attacking each other. This applies in politics and religion, also.

Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the world.
We go after each other because we have no bigger threat. Just watch and see what would happen if our "diversion" was threatened from outside (though I don't know how that would happen - legislation outlawing "fat old bald guys dressed up and pretending to kill each other" [my wife's description of the hobby]). You'd see the farbs and campaigners pulling together, at least for a while. At least until we got the treasure.

Throw in a generous helping of the original sin - pride - and shake well...

HighPrvt
02-01-2007, 01:16 PM
This whole discussion reminds me of two gems of wisdom I heard elsewhere:

The pirates don't start killing each other until they have the treasure.
We must feel we have arrived and have most of what we want, or we wouldn't be attacking each other. This applies in politics and religion, also.

Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the world.
We go after each other because we have no bigger threat. Just watch and see what would happen if our "diversion" was threatened from outside (though I don't know how that would happen - legislation outlawing "fat old bald guys dressed up and pretending to kill each other" [my wife's description of the hobby]). You'd see the farbs and campaigners pulling together, at least for a while. At least until we got the treasure.

Throw in a generous helping of the original sin - pride - and shake well...


Here's one possibility.....
Zoom ahead to say '09.
Democrat controlled Congress/ President pass sweeping new " anti terror laws" with banning black powder/caps, etc. included. Along with the revoking of the Second Amendment.

Wounded_Zouave
02-01-2007, 02:18 PM
Here's one possibility.....
Zoom ahead to say '09.
Democrap controlled Congress/ President pass sweeping new " anti terror laws" with the banning black powder/caps, etc. included. Along with the revoking of the second amendment. Government doesn't work that quickly or that simply even if one party holds sway over the Hill and the White House. Trying to get any legislation through takes a Herculian effort and adding or repealing a Constitutional Ammendment is even more difficult. Besides black powder is not the ignition agent of choice for terrorists. There is more powerful stuff under your kitchen sink and in your garage.

Additionally, a nationwide ban on either smokeless or traditional black powder and caps would hit too many people in the pocketbook and that's what politics is all about. Hunting with modern and traditional black powder rifles is a growing industry and getting bigger every year. It's the "one shot, one kill" idea that emphasizes the hunter's skill as a marksman that is fueling the trend so they would be our allies in this. The full force of the NRA backed by the pro-hunting lobbyists as well as black-powder era reenactors could make a lot of noise. As reenactors we've also got an "in" with one of the sacred cows of the Democrats: the National Park Service. We give people reasons to visit the historic parks when we put on demos, especially firing demos, and so we would have some advocacy from the parks and the friends of parks groups.

I have a feeling we'll have a Democrat in the White House in '09 (as much as I loath the idea), but if that happens we'll have more to fear from increased taxes impacting the hobby than black powder bans or 2nd Ammendment repeals.

Rob Weaver
02-01-2007, 04:04 PM
The reason reenacting politics is so vicious is that so little is at stake. Think about it, really. And then check yourself when you detect the urge to rip somone a new one.

captdougofky
02-01-2007, 05:14 PM
I notice you are Artillery, I have been reenacting for about 12 years. I did not know we did not get along until I joined this web site. All the different classes of reenactor etc. At first they made me mad with some of their comments, now after a few months most of the ones trying to start a flame war you can pick out and just laugh. Artillery is different we know each other after a few years and all get along both union and confederate, Safe operation of the guns is our mine concern. Infantry and the people who do that side of the hobby get worked up over a lot of different issues. Artillery does things different and I for one want to keep it that way.

Always
Doug Tomas
Lyons Battery
Kentucky CS

bill watson
02-01-2007, 07:14 PM
"It just pisses us off more here, because we're all supposed to be of a common goal (??) and on the same page."



I think also it pisses us off because, after all, when you take all of us interested in any way in representing the Civil War, there aren't many of us, and the frustrations of trying to assemble plausible vignettes and events is already plagued by our spread-out geography. When there's already not many of us to go around, adding philosophical differences to it is just that much more frustration.

You want real fighting? The deaf. Some of them split into factions based on whether they were born deaf, became deaf later, must sign, can speak, or have betrayed their associates by remedial surgery/devices. It is quite passionate at times and the nuances upon which the lines are drawn seem as arbitrary to me as our schisms probably are to most of the world.

Forquer
02-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Artillery is different we know each other after a few years and all get along both union and confederate, Safe operation of the guns is our mine concern. Infantry and the people who do that side of the hobby get worked up over a lot of different issues. Artillery does things different and I for one want to keep it that way.

Oh that the world was such a perfect place. I respectfully beg to differ.

There are plenty of points of contention within the artillery community. We face all of the same issues from safety, the way everyone prepares rounds, incorrect drills, reenactorisms, and authenticity that all of the other guys do.

Ours is not altogether a peacable kingdom.

reb64
02-01-2007, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=TheBaldYankee]So very true. Most of my life I've had a fascination with ghosts.

You just answered your own question, you said you had a fscination with ghosts impling you believe them real. I say no but am open to the chase or discovery of them.
Renectors are the same way, they have dug in aroung their position just as you have and probably can't be convinced otherwise probably just as you can't. ROb H

bob 125th nysvi
02-01-2007, 09:41 PM
If memory serves me right, it seems there was a bit of fighting before anything like this came about.

Bobby Lee was in a bit of a bind. They would have tried hard but it wouldn't have been much of a fight.

bob 125th nysvi
02-01-2007, 09:46 PM
It just pisses us off more here, because we're all supposed to be of a common goal (??) and on the same page.

hit the nail on the head.

The problem is there has never been a universally accepted definition of "a common goal".

CivilWarBuff1863
02-01-2007, 10:17 PM
I have yet to see or hear a ghost. I'm a skeptic too and generally don't believe in them. Like the old saying goes: I'll see it to believe it!

TheBaldYankee
02-02-2007, 05:38 AM
I was only using the ghost thing as a comparison. Whether or or not someone believes is, well, their business. The point was that the different amature research groups fight like a bunch of little kids. In that hobby (though many in the field see it as more than a hobby) there are several different ways to go about things. Everybody thinks theirs is the best.

I never joined a paranormal group, nor will I ever. I beleive what I believe based on my experiences, and I don't care to try to gather evidence to prove it to the masses.

For reenacting, and everyday life, I usually don't give two hoots what people think of me. Take me as I am. I'm just getting started. I put together the best kit I could for the money I could afford. Now I'll focus on doing the best portrayal I can. If someone does things different that's fine. I have no desire to argue with them. I'm not jealous of them. Everybody has the right to enjoy themselves the way they see fit. If some wants to call me a farb to boost their own ego, then fine. I really don't care.

If you come at me with an attitude in person that's different. I have a low tolerance for jerky, disrespectful behavior. I still don't care what they think, but I'll let them know they are a jerk.

There's really no need to bicker and argue, but my original point was that it exsists in every hobby. I'd wager that even Trekkies, and D&D people piss and moan about each other. "Did you hear the way he speeks Klingon? His grammar's all wrong!" "Look at that phaser! What a cheap piece of crap!" "Your Starfleet uniform is all wrong. Where'd you get it...K-Mart?"

I don't even what to think about the battles between Star Wars and Star Trek.

ejazzyjeff
02-02-2007, 08:43 AM
I don't even what to think about the battles between Star Wars and Star Trek.

A better example of battles would be Star Trek (the '60s series) and Star Trek: The Next Generation.:p

tompritchett
02-02-2007, 08:43 AM
Why is there so much fighting between us?

In some cases, I truly believe that they do it because they have fun doing it.

MStuart
02-02-2007, 08:48 AM
A better example of battles would be Star Trek (the '60s series) and Star Trek: The Next Generation.:p

Jean-Luc Picard was a diplomat and explorer. James T. Kirk was a "human gland". ;-)

Mark

CivilWarBuff1863
02-02-2007, 09:29 AM
Jean-Luc Picard was a diplomat and explorer. James T. Kirk was a "human gland". ;-)

Mark

Picard could be the next client for Rogain. He needs some hair on that shiney head he's got. It sux that Kirk was killed off in Generations. As for Star Wars? Well Vader needs to buff his helmet and Luke needs to get Yoda off his back. Honestly who would want a dwarf hanging on thier back while performing jumps and stunts? I'm a fan of both and I poke fun at both, but I'm more of a fan when it comes to the Civil War.

As far as arguing? ****, it's all good and fun!

MStuart
02-02-2007, 02:54 PM
In some cases, I truly believe that they do it because they have fun doing it.

Put that statement under "truism's of the hobby". There are a few who's sole purpose in life seems to be to create dissention within the hobby. They enjoy it, feed on it, and it is their lifesblood. Nothing like sitting back and enjoying oneself while p*ssing folks off. Especially when they'll rarely, if ever, meet any of us in person. The why's and wherefore's of that is probably better covered in a Psych 210 forum.

Mark