Complaints vs. Action

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I've seen some threads here lately where some folks have complained that reenacting isn't more "realistic" in certain ways, whether in how battles are represented, to how field music is handled, and other issues.

To those who wish for better: Do you limit your views to this forum, or do you speak up to those who are in charge of your unit(s) (plural because many reenactors' home club is also part of a larger organization, like a battalion and sometimes even brigade-level organizations), or do you remain silent and merely wish for "things to get better"?

If more folks spoke up and asked for change, maybe it'd happen. Otherwise, the leaders--who often get a bit lazy after a while, particularly when they've occupied a position for more than a few years--assume that the rank and file enjoy the status quo and are more than happy to let things remain as they are; after all it's less work and certainly less controvrsial.

If you aren't satisfied with how things are at the events you attend, have you spoken up, or agitated for change?

[bill watson]

And while you're at it: When events that share your approach come along, do you attend? Or just complain that the events you do attend aren't what you like?

The solutions are out there, but, as Kevin's comments suggest, you need to move toward them. Doing the same things again and again and expecting a different outcome is one of the definitions of insanity. :-)

[GrumpyDave]

In short. Will you continue to be part of the problem or, begin to be part of the solution? If you complain and do nothing, nothing will change. If you complain and do nothing, you might as well not complain, nothing will change.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

And while you're at it: When events that share your approach come along, do you attend?


Bill,

While it's tempting to turn this thread into a "why not attend better events?" thing, I believe that's been done many times in the past. No, that's not what I'm getting at with this thread. In essence, what I'm asking about is leadership: who's willing to engage in it, who's willing to make the leaders do their job, and who's afraid of their leaders. Most folks are willing to complain on the side instead of confront someone with fake captain's bars on his shoulders or collar. To me, given that this is a hobby, it's difficult to understand folks who'll endure what they don't really like rather than work to improve it.

That's my personal view. I suspect others' opinions and actions are different.

[tompritchett]

In essence, what I'm asking about is leadership: who's willing to engage in it, who's willing to make the leaders do their job, and who's afraid of their leaders. Most folks are willing to complain on the side instead of confront someone with fake captain's bars on his shoulders or collar. To me, given that this is a hobby, it's difficult to understand folks who'll endure what they don't really like rather than work to improve it.

In some cases, talking with the leadership can be productive and in others, the leadership can develop the attitude that they always know best and rarely are receptive, and sometimes can become outright hostile, to suggested improvements. I served under one commander who leaned more to the latter side and ultimately found that I had to find a new home. Of course, when Bill Rodman as my current Bn commander, I am fortunate to be serving with an excellent example of the receptive commander.

Also sometimes the fault is not always with the formal leadership of the unit but rather with the informal leadership of the unit who will resist any changes and/or improvements beyond the status quo. In such units, any leader that listens and tries to enact suggestions for improvement runs the serious risk of being voted out of position.

[Mint Julep]

Who puts these people in charge? Who can remove them?

A man is only a leader when others follow him.

[indguard]

First of all, 90% of people are sheep to the 5% who are shepherds. [Deletion - too close to a common tag-line and, consequently might set off another round; THP]

Then, pile on top of that with the fact that of the 5% who are willing to step out, only 2% of them are good, solid leaders.

So, finding someone who is willing to take that step forward and then be worth everyone investing their loyalty in is not as easy as it might seem.

It's very, very easy to grumble, whine and complain, but another thing entirely to deal with all the disparate personalities, cobble together a plan, and make it work. A lot of people here seem to think all we have to do is "read the history" and it's all answered and easy after that. And, while all the technical questions might have an answer that can bear mere emulation, there is far more to running an event or battalion than just "doing what they did."

Anyone who says different has not organized and run very many different events or have not dealt with a wide variety of people.

Worse, people who come on here and complain don't really WANT to work with anyone. They just want things their own way and that is the end of it. And when any little thing goes against their own ideas, why then the whole world sucks.

I've spent many years "agitating for change" with varying degrees of success. But, over all, I am very pleased with my 24 years in this hobby. So, I can answer that I have done my best.

And with websites like this being far more "agitation" than help, I just have to say it is far harder in the doing than just SAYING things should be better!
_____________
A proud 2%er

[tompritchett]

Who puts these people in charge? Who can remove them?

A man is only a leader when others follow him.

My point was that in any organization there may be two sets of leaders - a formal group that is elected or appointed in some manner and an informal network that may set the tone of the organization. This can become readily apparent in dysfunctional units which are becoming split into factions and cliques centered around two sets of informal leadership groups - one of which may or may not involve the elected leaders of the unit. If any of you are involved in units where there is a clique that is always bitching and complaining, you can usually ultimately isolate the original source of the dissatisfaction to a few key members (the informal leaders) who the rest of clique is sheepishly following. In an ideal case, the elected leaders of a unit will also be the informal leaders and almost all will follow their lead. In a non-ideal case, the elected leaders may actually be pawns of informal leaders who are playing the role of a political boss or king-maker.

[Jubilo]

Dear Sir,

Since this is a non-merit based hobby it seems difficult to find any number of people with the same goals and thus individuals see no need in supporting something that doesn't reflect their particular desires. The real military has discipline; many reennactors have attitudes, issues, sarcasm and vindictiveness (view any forum's postings for proof), and no desire to cooperate or accomodate. It's a hobby. Those who do it well are reenactors/living historians. Those who do not do it well are still reenactors/living historians. Whether you're on the first string or the second string you're still in little league.
All for the old flag,
David Corbett

[vamick]

Ive always heard that it was a soldiers right to complain...as long as he at some point shut up and did what he was told..;) ..my dilemma vis a vis 'better events' is this..what I know and am fully kitted for is artillery, from what I can gather 'authentic' artillery is scarce or rather scarcer than infantry, in my outfit the gun owners rightfully have a wee bit more say since they are shelling out more for fuel etc .. We have talked about doing more events south of here, even westerly but that run has many hurdles/mostly transportation of guns and men to man them. at this time last year we were a six gun battery, all full sized etc, that said because of numerous things we are now a three/four gun unit 'effectively' with our 12 pdr Napoleon and trailer on the block for a song ( for those looking for a bigger 'gun';) ) getting all that carnival on the road isn't always as easy as coming up with a 'nifty event' somewhere to attend..now contrast that with the independent infantryman. in small messes ect..a lot more freedom of movement there///so for myself attending those better events first means a few more items for infantry, and a LOT more knowledge of drill, which most sergeants will tell ya comes "free "after ya sign on that dotted line:D ...my first love cavalry is similarly stymied by lack of that fartin kickin hay burnin main ingredient..tho I know a couple of outfits in Va that can provide a noble beast if ya have yer tack..which is a direction I'm gonna be lookin at in the future..IF I had my way Id attend 2 or 3 'tacticals' a year..something where the 'script' isn't set, where my personal movements, attention to duty, effect the out come,
(yeah I know thats 'playin cowboy' but by gum I wont have to worry about being 'out of bounds' or whether a pass got intercepted or not for that matter!:p ) also a li'l more campaign heavy..for right now that wouldn't fly with everybody in my merry band. tho; it wouldn't even have too, theres a core of us who go our own way anyway, just so long as we're there to support the battery when needed...this ain't for everybody, campaign style!..neither is dragging around the kitchen sink for yer canvas Holiday Inn...for many of us Id say more than "agitating' we're lookin at striking out on our own, at least in part. if we're looking to see that 'bigger elephant'

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Tom,

While there are some leaders--put that word in quotes if you prefer--in reenacting who are resistant to change, not all of them are like that. However, your post gets closer toward what this thread is about: How can change, when it's necessary, be effected? When should it be pushed and when should it be "left"?

Certainly, there's a number of mini-dictators in the hobby. Whether their members can deal with them or not is probably a different topic.

[tompritchett]

However, your post gets closer toward what this thread is about: How can change, when it's necessary, be effected? When should it be pushed and when should it be "left"?

Exactly - both with the formal "dictators" and with the informal leaders within a unit who will fight tooth and nail against any improvement. Unfortunately, in those two cases ultimately the change may very well be finding another home.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Just a thought: While soldiers through the ages have probably earned their "right to complain", let's bear in mind that reenactors are far from "soldiers". We're a set of social clubs that have a common theme based in some measure on historical events.

Ergo (how's that for a word?), I'll opine that a club should have some type of goal or purpose, and some common "thing" that ties its members together. In that vein, the leaders and the membership, in theory, should be working together so that the club's members as a group have a good time together and as a club meet the purpose and goals of the club.

Admittedly, few reenactor groups are goal-motivated or even have any kind of purpose other than "to go to events" of some sort. If the whole club is, however, directionless and has no real goals, then it's A) Easy for leaders to get lost in things like petty squabbling and ego, and B) Easy for the members ot get apathetic. Either way, chaos results.

I like to think that a good, goal-motivated reenactor club, whether it's a local group or a battalion or larger, will have leaders who, at least sometimes, are interested in keeping the members active, engaged, and in some way moving forward--define what that means as it suits your own club.

Further, how those suggestions for improvement and change are made are probably just as important as the suggesetions themselves.

[Union Navy]

Who's running for office in your organizations? Why not you? Here we run into something Frank Herbert put so eloquently- Power attracts the corruptible (or I might add, those who hunger and thirst for status and recognition). Those who might make the best leaders often don't even run. Herbert's suggestion was to make qualified people serve until they start to like it, then replace them with another qualified but unwilling candidate. How this would work is beyond me, but it makes sense in some ways. Like Kevin and others say, you have to be part of the solution. YOU run, YOU set the direction with rank and file input. Maybe there should be a test for regimental and battalion command, and not just technical aspects. Add organizatonal behavior aspects, too. We don't need to tolerate dictators - we're volunteers and hobbyists.

[jurgitemvaletem]

Who's running for office in your organizations? Why not you? Here we run into something Frank Herbert put so eloquently- Power attracts the corruptible (or I might add, those who hunger and thirst for status and recognition). Those who might make the best leaders often don't even run. Herbert's suggestion was to make qualified people serve until they start to like it, then replace them with another qualified but unwilling candidate. How this would work is beyond me, but it makes sense in some ways. Like Kevin and others say, you have to be part of the solution. YOU run, YOU set the direction with rank and file input. Maybe there should be a test for regimental and battalion command, and not just technical aspects. Add organizatonal behavior aspects, too. We don't need to tolerate dictators - we're volunteers and hobbyists.


A capital idea, and one worth giving thought to in all units yes, but in the beginning who would administer such a test? Who would create the questions and judge the answers as being right and wrong? Would it be the previous commander? And what if it happens that the previous commander, or other such administer was the sort we have been discussing, one who had no place being in that role to begin with, and has "found himself too comfortable in that role", which is most likely to be the case?

So the question is how would such a test be administered. Like I said, I believe this is a great idea and has much merit, one that should indeed be considered, but first must be worked through to get out all the bugs.

[vamick]

A capital idea, and one worth giving thought to in all units yes,

That is true, but implementation is nigh impossible across the board, because these patchworks or organizations are so spread, and diverse in their "parent organizations" if any...that it would have to be a voluntary thing, ergo ( what a fancy dancy word eh?:D ) one wouldn't have complete control, ya know its deeper than just CC or even company level command, it's your pards, your comrades, your rank and file that all determine the sway. I haven't done a survey but I'd bet the chicken lot (as opposed to 'the farm') that most outfits have quite a mish-mash of members from the confirmed "mainstream if I could fit a camper in that tent I would" to the "If I'm comfortable it might be wrong' hardcores in waiting..I say VIVE LA DIFFERENCE..don't think I've ever been in something with a totally one way mindset..that would be a cult huh?:D
Seems to me the rub is when folks cant equally do as they will, for instance you could have a great 'leader" but given this dynamic, how does he lead? Is he more 'hard core' is he more 'mainstream'?? It depends on what folks want and setting BOTH ends against the middle will only work if ya have both ends, otherwise the folks have either to be in step WITH their leader/change leaders/or change outfits, I cant see it any simpler.

[bill watson]

I'm at a loss to understand leadership that imposes its own vision, in any setting, let alone in a completely volunteer organization based on spending leisure time in pursuit of history, at some level. Surely leadership in that setting has to come from being the fellow best able to articulate and implement a shared vision held by the group? Or there would be no group? Which leads to the suspicion that those unhappy with the leadership are in fact holders of a 'minority vision,' and most members are happy the way things are.

When to push and when to walk? When you explain your vision and the leadership says "Huh?" : That might be the signal to go.

[vamick]

I'm at a loss to understand leadership that imposes its own vision, in any setting, let alone in a completely volunteer organization based on spending leisure time in pursuit of history, at some level. Surely leadership in that setting has to come from being the fellow best able to articulate and implement a shared vision held by the group? Or there would be no group? Which leads to the suspicion that those unhappy with the leadership are in fact holders of a 'minority vision,' and most members are happy the way things are.

When to push and when to walk? When you explain your vision and the leadership says "Huh?" : That might be the signal to go.

I agree!, and I'd add it isn't always a signal to 'go' completely, it depends on what yer lookin for, one could keep a toe in both waters! ya just have to gauge yer personal 'unhappiness' I suppose, for myself Id like 'more', but in finding that, I have only myself to look at I'm afraid...

[tompritchett]

Here we run into something Frank Herbert put so eloquently- Power attracts the corruptible (or I might add, those who hunger and thirst for status and recognition).

One of the first rules we set up in my unit was that the unit commander and the unit president had to be two separate people. This is an iron-clad rule that I insisted on when I took on the role of commander. Besides the obvious avoiding of too much consolidation of power, this rule also avoids the potential of burning out someone trying to do both roles. Also, the qualifications for the two positions can be quite different. In any unit the military commander should be the person most knowledgable of military drill and have the abiltiy to teach that while the president should be have the ability to set the tone and direction of his or her organization through his or her leadership abilities. I am sure that many of us can think of individuals who are great on the field commanders but could not lead themselves, yet alone any one else, out of a paper bag. Of course, someone will probably ask what happens if the person with the best qualifications for a military commander is also the person with the best leadership abilities for setting the direction of the unit. In that case, it is still better for that individual to accept the commander role and then use his leadership ability in an informal role to support the efforts of the unit president.

Just my 2 cents on this issue.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Those who might make the best leaders often don't even run. Herbert's suggestion was to make qualified people serve until they start to like it, then replace them with another qualified but unwilling candidate.

Outside of Utopia (a place I hope to live in one day), short of a petty dictator, I can't imagine a worse candidate for leadership than someone who is unwilling to take the role. A leader has to WANT the job. Maybe not hunger for it, certainly not lust for it as many do, but he does indeed need to WANT that job. Lack of that desire usually spells lack of motivation and halfhearted efforts. We've all made the jokes after a unit's annual meeting: "____ got elected to the Board? What? Did he not show up to the meeting or something, and they nominated and elected him because he wasn't there?" Yeah, those types ALWAYS make the best, most visible, leaders, don't they? ;)

[Rob Weaver]

Outside of Utopia (a place I hope to live in one day)
"Utopia" is Greek for "Nowhere." :cool:

[flattop32355]

A leader has to WANT the job. Maybe not hunger for it, certainly not lust for it as many do, but he does indeed need to WANT that job.

Think I'll aim for middle ground on this one: Maybe the best leader is the fellow who, while not particularly seeking the post, is willing to do the job (and do it fairly well) for a specified period of time, but not forever. Or who seeks to occupy the position for a term or two, but no more. Then he steps down and supports his successors in their own good efforts.

It strikes me that we diverge on just what "leadership" we can be discussing, here. That within our local unit? An umbrella organization? Those who control an event/military over which we have no influence beyond participation or not in the event? Other situations?

The solutions for one are not necessarily the solutions for the others. There may be some overlap, but each has its own, unique approaches.

[OVI]

It has been my observation over the course of more than a decade of reenacting, that certain folks who are natural leaders in business and civic endeavors shun these roles in the hobby organizations because they enjoy their time in the ranks as a respite from their everyday responsibilities. Cant fault em for that either.

Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"

[Kevin O'Beirne]

we diverge on just what "leadership" we can be discussing, here. That within our local unit? An umbrella organization? Those who control an event/military over which we have no influence beyond participation or not in the event? Other situations?

Yes. All of 'em are important.



The solutions for one are not necessarily the solutions for the others. There may be some overlap, but each has its own, unique approaches.

Give that man a brigadier general's star. :)

[bob 125th nysvi]

who is are the "leaders" of an organization and who are the officers on the field.

Our association has a BoD that consists of 5 members and the head of military committee (our ranking officer). They run the organization and are in their respective positions for their abilities at organization (the BOD consists of 1 Sgt and 4 pvts) while the Captain is elected based on his knowledge of being an offcier and his willingness to lead in the field.

That being said at best we bring a Captain or Lt to be a line officer. They are then commanded by a higher ranking officer appointed by the hosting organization.

Suggestions made with in the association are discussed and then either implemented or not implemented on consencus basis. Improvements to an individual's impression is always encouraged and a matter of personal choice.

Acting like a soldier is expected and insisted upon by the officers/ncos. And the portrayal has to be consistant with the original 125th NY.

How we manuver on the field is dictated by the manual in the captain's pocket.

However what we do at an event is dicated by the host orgainization. What we do in the field is dictated by the officers in charge. Suggestions do go up the line but whether or not they are implemented is a command decision.

Now I can understand where "reality" sometimes takes second place to political reality.

Example the musicians. In our organization a musician is a position that can be filled by a boy under 16 (since they are not allowed to play with weapons) which is then also used a recruiting ground for future infantrymen. So I can understand from a political point of view that the band leads the battalion into the woods because if someone tells the boys "work hard at being a musician but drop the instrument and grab the stretcher when we go into the woods" or worse remain back at camp with the surgeon, that it may not be much of an inducement for the boys to be good musicians while waiting to move into the ranks. Leading out the battalion can be fun.

So there are two levels here. Individual unit and how you work in those. And then the people hosting the event and how can you work with them.

Does anybody have an good example of how you can work with an event long distance (a couple of hundred miles) its not like you can come to meetings or pick up the groceries to help out.

[hanktrent]

Does anybody have an good example of how you can work with an event long distance (a couple of hundred miles) its not like you can come to meetings or pick up the groceries to help out.

One thing is to help provide research, either for the event in general or for other participants. Local people have better access to local documents, but interlibrary loan and online research are sometimes almost as useful and can be done anywhere.

Another thing is mentoring newer participants. While face-to-face is ideal, email is fine for questions like "Is this clothing item acceptable?" "Do I need to practice this?" "How would I handle it if that happens?" and similar basic questions.

Also, if the event needs documents written out, forms prepared, signs made up, maps re-copied period style, or anything time-consuming but light to transport, you can volunteer to do that and mail or email the results.

And then there's the general gadfly role, which may or may not be appreciated, depending on the organizers' comfort zone, level of overwhelmedness, event goals, etc.: "Hey, just found out that historically, this cool thing happened at the time and place. Wouldn't be hard to recreate. Can I get a few of my guys to portray it?" Or, "You said it's too hard to get people to do X, but here's how we got them to do it at event Y, and it worked out well."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[bob 125th nysvi]

One thing is to help provide research, either for the event in general or for other participants. Local people have better access to local documents, but interlibrary loan and online research are sometimes almost as useful and can be done anywhere.

Another thing is mentoring newer participants. While face-to-face is ideal, email is fine for questions like "Is this clothing item acceptable?" "Do I need to practice this?" "How would I handle it if that happens?" and similar basic questions.

Also, if the event needs documents written out, forms prepared, signs made up, maps re-copied period style, or anything time-consuming but light to transport, you can volunteer to do that and mail or email the results.

And then there's the general gadfly role, which may or may not be appreciated, depending on the organizers' comfort zone, level of overwhelmedness, event goals, etc.: "Hey, just found out that historically, this cool thing happened at the time and place. Wouldn't be hard to recreate. Can I get a few of my guys to portray it?" Or, "You said it's too hard to get people to do X, but here's how we got them to do it at event Y, and it worked out well."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

everything you say is valid but maybe the question should have been 'How does someone get involved in helping organize an event when not local and not part of the hosting organization?'

I mean I'm sure they get a lot of unsolicited advice as to what they should be doing but how does one contribute? I find advice is more likely listened to when the advisor is part of the solution.

Even different research may not give a accurate picture. As an example, two soldiers, fighting in the same battle with the same unit may have two differing views of what happened. And written those views in their letter diary, whatever. Neither would be 'more' historically accurate that the other just different.

[hanktrent]

I mean I'm sure they get a lot of unsolicited advice as to what they should be doing but how does one contribute? I find advice is more likely listened to when the advisor is part of the solution.

Well, if I'm planning on attending an event, I just email 'em and ask 'em. "I know I'm 200 miles away, but from this distance, what do you need? What can I do?"

Note that with everything I suggested, the solution was offered right along with the advice, or at least that was the implication: Do you need somebody to copy out documents or maps by hand? I'll do it. Do you need somebody to mentor newbies via email? I'll do it. Would you like this portrayed? I'll do it or find someone to or supply research to those who'd be involved.


Even different research may not give a accurate picture. As an example, two soldiers, fighting in the same battle with the same unit may have two differing views of what happened. And written those views in their letter diary, whatever. Neither would be 'more' historically accurate that the other just different.

Uh, you lost me. Of course. That's a basic issue with all research.

I'm not saying one should write, "Hey you farbs, you're doing it wrong, because you're following so-and-so's diary and I can prove by whozit's diary it didn't happen that way."

I'm saying one should write (hypothetically, as a random example), "Hey, I noticed you mentioned there would be a pay call. Do you need more information on that? I happen to know something about period money and pay call procedures, and can research the denominations of bills issued and what charges were typically taken out of the soldiers' pay at that particular time and place, with the real historic names of sutlers and laundresses, and make up all the paperwork and show where to order reproduction bills, and email the research and detailed period procedure to everyone involved. Are you interested in that?"

The reaction might be, "Hey, that'd be great, we want the best paycall we can do, but so-and-so was too swamped to put the time in to research it." And suddenly, for no work, the event pay call goes from a generic sorta-okay paycall, to a really dandy re-creation, thanks to the help of someone 200 miles away.

Or the reaction might be, "Geez, another hardcore who thinks we aren't good enough, making more work for us. How can we get rid of him?" ;) In that case, you just sorta bow out, and only worry about researching your own impression as it would fit into the existing event plans.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[flattop32355]

Maybe there should be a test for regimental and battalion command, and not just technical aspects. Add organizatonal behavior aspects, too.

Examination for Eligibility for Field Rank Officers in CW Reenacting:

1: Can you afford to buy a custom-made uniform with rank insignia, plus a wall tent and desk/chair?
2: Do you enjoy being in charge, even when you have no idea what "being in charge" means in these circumstances?
3: Can you growl out commands is such a manner as the rank and file cannot possibly understand what the H#LL it was you just ordered?
4: Can you purchase a copy of a drill manual, and then totally ignore it? Better still, can you successfully refrain from even considering the purchase of one?
5: In the midst of a battle scenario, can you look upon the developing situation, spot the inaccurate aspects of said situation, and ignore them?
6: Can you believe that, if we've done the same frickin' thing every frickin' year for the past ten frickin' years, that everyone is frickin' satisfied with the way its done, and so let's frickin' do it that frickin' way again this year?
7: Can you convince yourself that all those reenactors attending this event are there soley for your own, personal self-edification?
8: Do you believe that historical accuracy is secondary to "putting on a good show"?

If you can answer "Yes" to these questions, you are indeed ready for Field Grade command at any number of reenactments.

[RJSamp]

To which, Add:

9. Have no idea how or why to use Field Musics and a bugler. When supplied with a bugler, absolutely squander the use of this resource and discourage them from even staying in the hobby. Use 'em or lose 'em. Your voice of command is the perfect instrument, is it not?

10. Horses are for the cavalry, off to the side somewhere and get 'em off the battle field early. If it's a long way to the battlefield it's easier and safer to take a golf cart or gator than to mount a dark colored horse and a Grimsley.

[vamick]

10. Horses are for the cavalry, off to the side somewhere and get 'em off the battle field early. If it's a long way to the battlefield it's easier and safer to take a golf cart or gator than to mount a dark colored horse and a Grimsley.

:D and all this time I thought "Wheel Horse" was the nearest pair to the artillery limber!..so to cause less confusion I'd say they should stay with the John Deere Gator!..not the Harley golf carts either! :rolleyes:

[RJSamp]

:D and all this time I thought "Wheel Horse" was the nearest pair to the artillery limber!..so to cause less confusion I'd say they should stay with the John Deere Gator!..not the Harley golf carts either! :rolleyes:

The lead horse is the first foursome.....the swing horse is for your driver or 4 iron......or is that Hey Batter Batter.....Swing Batter Batter


Definitely a Shriner.....

[Guy Gane III]

These types of things are the reason I'd rather do the movies. :?

Politics suck. Plain and simple. They ruin friendships and stir others toward anger.

How about all the old guys step down from "leadership" positions and let the young fellas who, coincidentally, happen to be historically correct in age... run the show? :oops:

When the big rush of new recruits come flooding in in the near future, who is going to lead them? I know of many who would love to have the chance. Men who deserve it.

[flattop32355]

When the big rush of new recruits come flooding in in the near future, who is going to lead them? I know of many who would love to have the chance. Men who deserve it.

Be careful: You may get what you wish for.

If you (the universal "you") intend to be one of those leaders, start studying and training NOW, whether you hold rank or not at this time. To know the manuals and drill in your head is nothing compared to trying to herd cats in the field. The difference between head knowledge and the actual experience of doing it is the difference of night and day.

How do I get a company (battalion? brigade?) from point A to point B, in the most efficient manner, and be pointing in the right direction, with all the component units in the proper position to each other? Sounds easy, but just try it.

For that matter, just try moving a squad where and how you want them to move in an open field without running them into a treeline or ditch or tents or firepit or each other. Try getting them to turn just when and where you want them to turn as you try to think three (or more) steps ahead for the next phase of the movements you want to make.

Bored out of your skull at an event because of the downtime and nothing to do? Grab some comrades and do some maneouvers. Take turns. Laugh at the screwups, and applaud the successes. Learn. Appreciate. Do.

[bill watson]

Guy is one of the fellows who is learning. He got a look at event logistics at McDowell. He didn't scream and run away.

And he's aware some of us in leadership roles of one sort or another are definitely trying to build a strong cadre of leaders for the future. What's not clear is why all organizations and leaders aren't doing that. If you're not growing, you're dying; not building new leaders is a good way to die. And it's not always the colonel-for-life crowd that's the problem; down at the other end of the rainbow I've noticed a lot of reliance on experience, picking people who have mastered this or that function. Yeah, but you need to pair them up with fellows who haven't mastered it and make sure those guys get to run the backhoe rather than just watch the smart guy do it.

Some folks are afraid of losing their "power" at the head of an organization. Others are afraid of being criticized for mistakes if their events are not perfect (a variant manifestation of the stitch-counting fixation?) There's more than one route to stagnation, apparently.

[Anders]

----Yeah, but you need to pair them up with fellows who haven't mastered it and make sure those guys get to run the backhoe rather than just watch the smart guy do it. ----

Bill, great line!

And yeah whining does no good. Fun, entertaining and what-not, but accomplishing nothing.

Best just to do, let others whine. Those who can - do...those who can't- whine and claim they can.

As to movies- eek, I prefer to control my own destiny, not let some fruity director tell me what to do... been down that road way too many times.

To each their own though

Pards,

[Chip]

All:


1st Post, so here goes:

First, it is interesting to me that we are so advanced in the hobby that we have come to the point of developing the "intangibles" (leadership, etc.) I think that says a lot. Essentially it says that we have a TON of info available in relation to developing the impression. What we can now afford to work on is "Quality Control". Having said that:

I Never understood why more "Umbrella" organizations didn't create more in the way of expectations for their membership:
Proper company ratios
material culture
Methods, etc...

If more Battalion level organizations do so more than I am aware of, than I stand corrected. However, through many other posts related to this topic, I have not seen mention along the lines of what I have written above. ( I feel the Army of the Pacific does do this, to great effect.)

I believe that this would have an effect on the efforts of the various units to:

increase membership
develop impressions
etc...

Well wait a minute, I know why; (membership/retention) just never understood it. If any organization is only as good as its people, why doesn't the leadership work a little more closely with its people to move everyone forward?

A great book is available to anyone interested in leadership, or just interested in "Self-Improvement":

The World's Most Powerful Leadership Principle: How to Become a Servant Leader
by James C. Hunter

Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Most-Powerful-Leadership-Principle/dp/140005334X

Book is written under the "business" model, but is easily adaptable to everyday situations, including the "anomally" of reenacting.

Essentially it says that as a leader you are accountable to your peers. Which in reenacting is very applicable in that we are peers rather than a true military organization.

It seems to me that if hobby leadership (battalion to company level) continued their own education and passed that on to those in need, much of the "compaints vs. action" could be alleviated.

See you all in the field,

Sam Lowe
Botsford Mess

[Guy Gane III]

My references to lousy reenactors comes from the crowd who admit to being in the hobby for X amount of years and if they have done "research" it's about the battles and not their portrayal.

I know a lot of guys locally and nationally that really don't give a hoot to improve. WHY??????!!!! Why not?? Why not improve your knowledge? It works to everyone's benefit if you buy/borrow/beg for a reference material that can show you why your "knowledge" of the battles doesn't apply in reenacting.

Broaden your minds. I ask the questions I do, because I know there is someone or many who will read this and re-evaluate their experience in "The Hobby". I know I don't know everything... I want to learn... so I put myself in the position to learn the most I can about that subject. Of course, real life comes into play more than I would like, but I'm, always starving for good info.

The trends I see happening in CW reenacting are, for the most part, on an upward swing.

We have low numbers now, but it doesn't mean we can't start educating those we have currently in our circle. WE are the futures of tomorrow. WE are the ones who the young or new recruits will look to for guidance.

If you don't know something, SEEK OUT those who can answer the questions! This unit identity crap should end and we should all be able to come together as the REAL boys did. Having the idea for 'unit' structures was based on trying to keep organization. You can't do an LH on your unit when you are supposed to be portraying a certain regt. (at events) that you don't "belong to". I could tell you that I have been doing Winter '64's before it was "Winter '64". Know what I learned from it? That I wouldn't have made it through a winter in sub-zero windchill conditions, the middle of February is the worst month to hold it, (haha), and that I had to suck it up and leave behind my knowledge of the 49th NY and start learning about the 151st NY - a unit that is from the same county I am from (Niagara - the 49th co. H came out of Niagara, co.B from Erie County).

I guess the point Im trying to make is that I didn't throw a stink about not being "the 49th NY". I was willing to lay down what I knew to gain even more knowledge about many things. How many of you (aka: the hobbyist), do that?


The real question is when do you separate individuality for the sake of the greater good??

[NoahBriggs]

I was willing to lay down what I knew to gain even more knowledge about many things. How many of you (aka: the hobbyist), do that? The real question is when do you separate individuality for the sake of the greater good??

This was never an epiphany to me when I started near twenty years ago. It was, in fact a literal goal. I wanted to improve and work on the impression from the get go. The group I was with had the same general idea - but a different method of getting there. Short story was they were not willing to go at the speed I was going. Frustration and the horrid stink of reenactor burnout permeated my uniform for the last two years I was with them.

I noticed a general trend at the turn of the millenium - single-impression company-sized "units" were fading from the scene to be replaced by larger, battalion-sized organizations, who organize individual generic companies on a local/regional level. These seem to be the groups organizing the newer, "better" events, with an eye toward preservation, as opposed to being cash cattle for the local Podunk Civil War Days. They bought a lot of different uniform components so they could cover the whole gamut of the war, Union or Confederate. Some even went so far as to learn civilian stuff, or learn to drill in other branches of the service in order to increase their utility.

These groups have good examples of leadership to me. Flexibility in impressions is one key - as Guy pointed out, a CR member can find himself portraying up to three regiments in one event alone. The leadership has it somewhat easy in rallying members for events, because said membership is motivated to attend the events in the first place. What motivation? To preserve, honor and educate immediately comes to mind. Preservation takes a front seat here in the bosom of the Eastern Theater. MOney has been raised through events and donated.

Younger folks are taking command, and pushing the envelope in different ways, always trying to keep stagnation at the back of the line. Younger folks are forming messes to hook up with larger groups, and a lot of the kids are willing to mentor newbies and help foster them into future leadership. Buttonhat Boys come to mind, off the 15th NJ. there are others, I know, and sorry if I did not mention you. Y'all know whose you are.

I "divorced" from my unit about 2003 or 4, with the idea of seeking broader impressions as provided by some of the newer umbrella orgainizations. The Columbia Rifles are my current military home as the unofficial sawbones, and Atlantic Guards Soldiers Aid Society, with its eclectic and talented crowd, is the place I prefer for civilian applications. Sometimes I attend events on my own, and God forbid, actually temper my impression so it fits in with the rest of the scenario.

So reenactor futures are not necessarily gloom-n-doom if you are willing to look around for it. Results? You betcha; here's a partial list of accomplishments over the past couple of years.

Winter '64.
Paynes Farm.
Into the Wilderness, last May.
Immortal 600.
Vicksburg coming up.
Shiloh.
Fort Granger.
NPS battlefield crawls which retrace the footsteps of our ancestors.
Slaughter Pen, Oct. 26-28.

It's out there if one cares to look. Your mileage will, of course vary.

[flattop32355]

How many of us get to reenact the actual unit our organizations are named for? I'm kinda thinking not too often. This year we're fortunate to be doing "ourselves" at part of September Storm.

Other than that, we're whoever we need to be to fit into the reenactment, be it generic soldiers or as part of a specific unit.

While it's nice to be "us" once in a while, reality just doesn't lend itself to it very much. Those who insist upon doing only "their" unit deny themselves good opportunities and shortchange the needs of event sponsors and other participating units. More's the pity.

[Rob Weaver]

Let me address that a little bit. Our company always wears our Black Hats, and we're always the 7th Wisconsin. When we are "playing ourselves" we emphasize a few more Iron Brigade distinctives: 7s on the hat brass, gaiters, etc. When we're not, we jetison all the distinctive except the hat. The hat stays. The longer I've studied the IB, the more amazed I am at how average the men really were, and how average the experiences they encountered. My experience has also been that the IB appearance is generic enough that with only the minor adaptations above, it can fit in any place and time in the war within reason. Trying to do other companies almost killed our unit a few years back, because we never got to be ourselves. It's also difficult to teach new reenactors about the IB if we're expected to be something else often. That esteem is more caught than taught and it takes time.

[hanktrent]

Our company always wears our Black Hats, and we're always the 7th Wisconsin. When we are "playing ourselves" we emphasize a few more Iron Brigade distinctives: 7s on the hat brass, gaiters, etc. When we're not, we jetison all the distinctive except the hat. The hat stays.

How do you handle it at events where all the federals are expected to portray one or two companies of a particular regiment? That seems to be the norm for Federals at most events I go to. If the selected regiment wasn't known for wearing black hats, do you just not attend? That seems it would prevent attendance at a lot of c/p/h events, or is that just not your area of interest?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Rob Weaver]

That's correct. We just don't do events in which the uniform guidelines don't allow for them. Frankly, there are more real-world considerations that strain out events, such as driving distance ($) and scheduling of other things in life. Not intended as a swipe at the c/p/h side of the house, those events aren't a high priority for us.