RedJessi

Are you talking period dagger and female attire of fantasy pirate for said dagger and thigh rig?

Do ye mean me or Piratelooksat40?

For me - I mean in reality - not fantasy - having a dagger strapped to a thigh seems like a counter-intuitive idea to me, due to not actually being able to get to it in anything but an awkward manner - rendering it pretty much useless in an actual fight.

There are people (I feel Jessi and Mission are in this group along with myself) who try to make their kit as accurate as possible yet don't participate in as many events as others might, we aren't hollywood pirates yet may not be involved enough to warant joining a particular group.

I am honored to be counted in such good company!

(NOTE: The pictures of these instruments is not meant to imply that the human being in said pictures can play with with any sort of proficiency. In fact, you should feel sorry for said instruments and might consider this posting as their cry for help.)

(and, yes, I use nylon strings and yes, I realize that means most guitarists therefore think I am insane.)

You know, I always wondered about this. While it is a sexy idea, it would seem that a blade holstered to a thigh...under skirts and possible mantua or more, would be quite difficult to actually get to in a timely manner. Were they actually used? Were daggers in stays more likely (as that seems more practical to me).

No one is asking or telling anyone they must join up, but as others have stated, venues are getting harder and harder to deal with so pardon me for offering to see if there was a way to help small or new groups or individuals that may need assistance with either insurance or resources to enable them to take the field.

Again, I ask that you give creedance to the idea that none of this is meant as a personal attack against you. No one that I have seen has suggested anything negative about the fact that you are willing to offer your experience in setting up insurance as a bad thing, so using emotional loaded language like "pardon me for offering" does nothing but create exactly the sort of division I think most of us are trying to avoid.

I kind of wondered about that as well. You seem to be ascribing responsible traits to serious re-enactors and calling the rest of us inaccurate or festival types. I believe my kit and presentation is about as accurate as I can make it at this point and I think the insurance thing is silly. (I believe it's another symptom of the "culture of fear" we've had running rampant in this country in the last ten or twenty years.)

First the fundamental attribution error and now the culture of fear? You are going to make me swoon, Mission!

Hawkyns, I'm curious as to why you ascribe the title of "elite" to those who want insurance - as, from my point of view at least - that was a totally separate debate? I am not picking up the crossover of topics you are implying...

In my mind it comes down to professionalism. Those of us who want to do more and be more

understand that there are costs involved with that. Costs that are both financial and restrictive. That applies whether you are running a full scale sea battle between ships, a sword circle, or interactive street theater. Being just somebody in pirate kit is not enough for me. If I class myself as a 16th or 17th century sea gunner, it is important to me that I actually have as many of the skills as I can to support that. Just saying it is not enough, I have to be able to prove it, to myself and others. In order to do that, I have to participate in activities that are dangerous to both myself, the crew around me, and the spectators. In order for venues to allow me to do that, they want more than my handshake to prove I know what I am doing. Insurance, qualifications, standards- all of these speak to the mundane risk analysts that I am not some yahoo with a cutlass and a pistol that is likely to sink their ship when I fire a broadside. If somebody is going to do street theater with little kids, they want to be sure that the pirate is not a pedophile or likely to somehow injure the kids while fooling around. They want to be able to point to some group that has connections with other sites that can say "Yeah, we've worked with these guys and their organisation. they're OK."

Hawkyns

I am still not catching the correlation. My dictionary widget says that the definition of elite is a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their wealth, power or talent. It also comes from the French elire, derived from the Latin eligere - 'to elect'.

Nothing in there about believing in insurance or the positive benefit of organizations, nor is there anything in your statement about being electing.

I am sure I am missing something, but I cannot think what.

As I'm seeing all of this, it reverts back to this morning's part of the discussion. The "elite" see the insurance and umbrella organisation as a good thing, because it opens up more venues and things to do. Others see it as a threat, since once we start doing things a bit more professionally, it could mean that to participate, rules would have to be followed. It could mean that we are looking at a divergence between the more accurate events with much participation, and the festival types, where many pyrates are little more than spectators in kit.

Hawkyns, I'm curious as to why you ascribe the title of "elite" to those who want insurance - as, from my point of view at least - that was a totally separate debate? I am not picking up the crossover of topics you are implying...

Well then speak up, come with the problems but also bring a possible solution...can't fix something if folks don't know its broken...

I personally have always been willing to listen, if folks would take the time to come talk to me.. and stop assuming that I will just tune them out...

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I have been to limited events, but I did have the experience that there were times that I attempted to strike up conversations with people about their clothing or what was going on for the day or what they were working at only to dealt with so abruptly that I walked away from the interaction feeling as if I had been so much as told "I don't have time to deal with you" or "go away, newb". This could be because those persons were busy, hadn't slept well, don't like redheads, or any number of reasons. I can accept that and am also stubborn enough (and am curious/want education enough) to go find someone else to ask. But were I not the type of person I am, I could well have walked away from pyracy altogether.

And what if I had spoken up - what would the outcome have been? It's pretty hypothetical when you get down to it, because the person could have gotten more frustrated/annoyed/short tempered with me or pointed me in the direction of someone who was willing to help.

In the end, I found my own way, because I am determined and thick skinned - and maybe that is what is needed in this type of hobby. But I think exclusionary tactics weaken the fold to some degree.

Ransom - well said.

Admittedly those who would meet standards and not want to be involved would likely be a small minority, but being outside of a society is exclusionary whether it would be intentional or not. Or is there an idea for keeping the "freebooters" in the loop? And if so, why can't the ideas that would apply to such "freebooters" be used as the norm, and leave the society for the individual groups that want such within their individual groups?

I am not really following this thread of discussion very well. Is there some concept that an overarching organization must be established?

Makes no sense to me. I say relegate this to the event/group level. If some people want an overarching org., great, they can create one, certify pirate re-enactment groups, hold events and do their thing. Why shouldn't they? Some people love belonging to large groups - more power to them. If some events insist on people belonging to crews or crews belonging to the overarching organization, great, they can do that too. I see no problem with any of that. (We freebooters who want to attend such events will obviously have to make a decision.) But saying everyone must belong to the overarching org. and trying to force existing "open" events (like PiP for example) is once again trying to impose one group's goals on other people. It will drive some people away from the hobby - what's the point of that?

And I think that is part of the fear many are reacting with. That an organization will be created and instead of creating new events that cater to that particular organizations goal/viewpoints - that it will instead attempt to co-opt and then completely take over existing open events and change them to meet their own standards, thus excluding others who do not have the same viewpoint.

The question being, why do they feel this way?

I would add the following to what Michael stated: Perhaps they feel they are not being heard, or that their PoV is being discarded as unworthy because they don't have the personal background or the years of experience in which to perfect a kit, impression, what have you. Perhaps they feel invalidated by not being part of the ingroup.

I also the think the 'rushing into things' comment is a bit off. This may be new in the pyrate world, but it's an old idea in the rest of the reenactment community. It may take a bit of getting used to for some who have always operated as indivdual freebooters, but it normal for those of us who have been around the block a few times. Why reinvent the wheel?

To the same end, why not go in gently for the people who have not been around the block a few times, so they feel less wheelbarrowed over?

Am I mediocre because I can't really sew?

I'm a mediocre freebooter.

What's a freebooter, exactly? I keep trying to figure it out but I don;t think I have the meaning...

That's what I call those who are not with an official crewe, sounds so much more pirooty than freelancer, eh?

Hurricane

LOL! Thank you for the explanation! Lancers were certainly not GAoP!

Aye but shouldn't critical analysis weigh both sides instead of just stating, sorry quote button not working, that in so many words, it just isn't going to work?

Quote button notwithstanding, could you refer to the post you mean by it's number identification? I don't recall anyone saying patently that the idea wouldn't work, wholesale.

Mission that all goes back to what you said before... there are different events available... if someone doesn't like one, don't go to it...why does that particular event need to change to suit that individual when it may be suiting others?

I don't think anyone said any events had to change. And people have said they would opt out of events that they felt they would be ill suited for. And others still questioned those decisions.

Which I think brings us right back around to the idea that each individual's involvement and degree thereof is a personal choice. Assuming why that choice was made, or assuming that there was no choice, just ignorance, is what I think many are trying say is damaging aspect.

Am I mediocre because I can't really sew?

I'm a mediocre freebooter.

What's a freebooter, exactly? I keep trying to figure it out but I don;t think I have the meaning...

I guess I just don't quite understand what you are aiming at here.... if an overhaul is needed, why not figure out what is needed and do it? Why not strive to better a group or oneself as an individual? Yes, sometimes that will split up a group, and some will go their separate ways, but it doesn't necessarily mean that is a bad thing...or should we be possibly settling for mediocrity? If folks no longer wish to go forward with a group due to likes/dislikes, time, finances whatever... doesn't mean they are in the wrong, doesn't mean the group they are splitting from is in the wrong either, just means they are no longer seeking the same thing from the activity/goal/desires the group was formed around in the first place...

You say : "why not figure out what is needed and do it? Why not strive to better a group or oneself as an individual?"

I dunno. Why?

I am not attempting to say I have the answers. I am just attempting to give a voice to the otherside. No one is saying the striving personally, or as a group is a bad thing. No one is saying anyone should "settle for mediocrity" - though I would hesitate to use that term myself. Am I mediocre because I can't really sew? Or because I am new and don't have 10 years of reenacting behind me? Am I mediocre because I don't have the compunction to travel far and wide terrifically often because I have other interests that also require travel from time to time? Or is that half a dozen of one, six of the other? Or none of the above?

Definitions become sticky, you see.

And an organization creating definitions for a larger community can be just as sticky. It can damage the group, it can damage the community. It can also be helpful to the group and helpful to the community. I personally feel that the biggest factor in deciding which way that particular pendulum swings is how those definitions, ideas, changes, and standards are communicated. Are people going to communicate/present as mentors or autocrats? Is language going to be geared towards understanding or towards labeling? Is education going to be offered in the spirit of personal growth or dictated as an expression of personal expertise?

I am not saying that any one person or any group of people are likely to fall on one side or the other of those question. I am merely putting the questions into the ring as having value and needing to be honestly looked at before proceeding. Just like many have said that a mistake to reenacting is rushing in inappropriately and with poor research, I am saying that rushing into creating a defined ingroup should be given just as much patience, caution and research.

Well, actually, no. Pollywood as we use it came into being because we saw too many renfaire pirates with stuffed parrots attached to their shoulders...

Hawkyns

Again, I am not attempting to define how YOU are using the term. I am attempting to point out how OTHERS could interpret it's use and how THAT can hurt.

Jessi, I think you are reading too much into what I'm saying. (One of the reasons I hated psych) I read what's on the surface and what is said, not what might be behind it. I use pollwood as a term to describe pirates whose research and persona comes from popular culture, not as a putdown. I've always said that there is a place for everyone in this hobby, whether it's staffing a museum replica ship, or just going to your buddy's pirate costume party. As far as the faire pirates who roll from pub to pub, I know many of them, both from MDRF and NYRF. I'm fairly active up and down the northeast, and I know who is out there. It's a fact that there are many who I do not see outside those venues. There are some who extend beyond that and many more who do not. That's fine. Nobody is saying they have to do more. But the fact remains that there are 'names' out there who everyone recognises and who are seen to be leaders in their part of This Thing That We Do. They are elites, and will always be recognised as such by those of us who are active at this year round. On the continuum, there will always be people who are between the two ends. How far one progresses towards the elite end will always be a personal choice, but it will also always be a determinant when people look at us and rate us. And that is something that people do, like it or not. Some people can take the criticism of being called a stitch nazi or Jack sparrow wannabe, some can't. Some people take umbrage at the most polite suggestion, others ask to be critiqued down to the underwear.

I take people as they are and treat them as I find them. I long ago gave up being PC to spare people's feelings. I've no doubt it has alienated a few over the years. I also know it has created a circle of friends (more like family) who have similar attitudes. I don't offer unasked for help, but I also don't ignore what is wrong for the venue. if that is the elitist attitude that some are talking about so be it, but to back off on the search for excellence because some don't like it does no service to anyone.

Hawkyns

NB- This comes across as harsh, and directed at you Jessi. It is not and is not meant to be. But parsing words is not what I am known for. It is simply how I feel, using the best terms I know.

Hawkyns

I am not attempting to imply that your meaning behind the term was maliciously intentioned. I am merely pointing out that it is a loaded statement that is seen by many to be judgmental language.

To whit: "Pollywood" - a combination of polyester and hollywood. Polyester is part of the cultural consciousness as a cheap, synthetic fiber most often associated with poor fashion choices. In the reenactor community, calling someone Hollywood denotes a person who has accepted what entertainment has shown as historical fact - therefore earmarking them as ignorant.

Thus, in it's shorthand, "Pollywood" can be seen by some as equal to "cheap and ignorant".

I am NOT saying that is what YOU are specifically saying. I am merely pointing out that it is a possible interpretation of the statement "pollywood pirate" in order to show how ingroup norms affect and damage outgroup individuals.

Thus, it might be helpful to the community as a whole to replace those terms with something less likely to be construed negatively. I think Sterling has done a fine job by denoting the difference between PC and Non-PC without sounding like one is better than the other by actively going out of his way to say there are merits to each, as the rich history our country has by way of the art of film making is just as viable as the history our eastern seaboard has with actual pirates.

And don't worry Hawkyns, it takes an awful lot for me to take a statement as a personal attack - my closest friends took to calling me "Justifiable Jessi" for a while due to my penchant for justifying the behaviors of others. hehe

For the record, I don't disparage anyone for wanting to take this hobby to whatever extreme they want, on either end of the continuum. But, I do feel the need to point out how we create certain situations without knowing that we are doing so. Rest assured that if this was a RenFair forum and people were using the phrase "stitch Nazis" I would be pointing out how damaging that term is to the overall community - not the least reason being that I find using the term "Nazi" to refer to anything other than the events of the Holocaust deeply distasteful as well as horrifically disrespectful to the actual history of that particular event.

so let me get this straight. a crews dream is to have a ship. that crew goes forward with the dream, does the paperwork and legwork to ensure it will be feasible, offers its services and is now "elite"????????????? I don't get it.

well call me silly, but i'd rather go forward with a dream and be considered elite than sit and stagnate.

For clarification, no one is calling anyone specific person or group here elite or elitist, nor is anyone saying that it is a negative trait to strive for something in particular that you want to strive for. All we are saying is that judging others for not wanting the same thing is not necessarily conducive to a happy and healthy community overall.

I think we are all trying to avoid anyone taking this personally.

again...not nescarilly....once a group stops growing...it eventually dies(in my humble opinion)...a groups goals should never become sstagnant...should always have something to reach for...should not be about simpley excisting...but to accomplish something

oe at least thats what i personally push within groups that i am associated with.

Agreed - any group must maintain an influx that at least matches the outgoing membership in order to survive.

However, (and I am just asking in a general sense, not because I am against the idea of anyone organizing or organizations in a broader sense) as I previously stated - the funnel of organizational filters allows for a group to become slightly better at what it already does - allowing for subtle changes....but what happens when an overhaul is needed? When the reach needs to exceed anything that has been reached for previously?

In my experience, that can kill an organization just as well as anything else. (as in, the group that bites off more than it can chew and slowly collapses from within...like a flan in a cupboard! )

I think I this point we are bordering on semantics...which is better, an idea or a belief? (According to Kevin Smith - A belief is something people will kill or die for - ie, the crusades...an idea is a lot more maleable and able to accommodate change...and therefore less killing, I suppose. heh) Which is better, an organization or a group?

i'm trying to figure out where "elite" keeps popping up.

I think you meant why "elite" keeps coming up?

Well, that is the assumption I will operate under as I try to respond - if not, disregard and clarify please?

"Elite" is being used as a shorthand to acknowledge that there is an inherent ingroup/outgroup bias that is often present at many events. Just as people on this forum have referred to "pollywood pirates" and just as they have referred to those on this forum as "stitch nazis".

I figure "elite" has less negative connotation than "nazi", less off-putting academic parlance than "ingroup" and still acknowledges that there are social constructs in place that put one group in higher standing than the other - a fact recognized by both the PC and non-PC alike.

...i think they ....CAN as act as formidable barriers....depending on WHO is maning the filter....and can be dangerous for a group if they dont temper it with another funnel...to get ideas from.

but to have a group successful...i do believe that funnels...as well as filters are needed....there are formulas that work for what is trying to be accomplished...and they should continue to be used...as long as there are new formulas being tried out as well...with the goal to improve.

Granted, I try to stay from absolutes in my statements....at the same time, isn't part of the (implied) purpose of an organization to sustain itself? And doesn't that therefore lend credence to the idea that changes of a broader swipe are negatives due to the impact they invariably have on said organizations?

ie - couldn't it be argued that organizations stand in opposition to change?

However... I have no interest in participating in elite events.

Interesting statement. Are you limiting yourself? If you have no experienced with a so-called "elite event" first-hand, how would you know for sure?

And just what is an "elite event"?

And are there "non-elite events" too?

Oh, I'm absolutely "limiting" myself. Another way to look at it that I am drawing a line as to where my involvement is appropriate for me - as Hurricane stated above, I don't feel the need/have desire to be recognized as the very best (which is not to say that it isn't a worthwhile goal, just that it is not MY goal).

But the erroneous assumption is that I am doing so without any knowledge. Just because I have never been to such an event doesn't mean I haven't spoken to individuals that have or done research on what it takes to get there/be involved at that level. And I am sure that if I *DID* attend such an event, I would find aspects of it more than just a little enjoyable. But the rub of it is the amount of time/effort/dedication/cost - in all the previous areas as well as financial cost of clothing, accessories, weapons, books, vacation time, travel expense, etc etc - versus where I feel my level of enjoyment would be, compounded by the fact that I have several other hobbies - professional and personal - that I want to dedicate time to, have led me to the personal choice that elite events are not a priority/interest for me.

I would define an "elite event" as one that is invite only, offers no or limited spectator involvement, and sticks to strict period accuracy as de riguer.

I would define a "non-elite event" as something more along the lines of PiP - there are camps of PC and non-PC participants, it's open to spectators, it offers entertainment as well as education - from living history types to lecturing/academic types.

The other topic that I mentioned wanting to review before posting about has to do withthe idea of creating a centralized/insurable organization.

The trouble with organizations is that they quickly create organizational filters - a process through which all new ideas must pass. This can be formal or informal - formal being submission, regimented procedures, etc; informal being more along the lines of perhaps you mention the idea to a few people of influence first, to get their support, before bringing the idea to the group as a whole. Even in organizations that on the surface seem extremely open to new ways of thinking can have such stringent filters that few ideas get implemented.

Think of it like a funnel - wide open on one end, but so narrow and specifically shaped at the end that only ideas that fit the preconceived mold actually get through.

Now, these filters come from expertise and the more "expert" an organization is, the more filters it is likely to have in place. Unfortunately, this means that while the filters can help the group get a little better at what it is that they already do, they also act of formidable barriers to doing something a whole lot better or completely differently.

The most telling thing about all this is the source from which I pulled it: The Innovation Killer, by Cynthia Barton Rabe.

And back to Mission;

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the fundamental attribution error theory. It was actually a huge break through in my own thinking that - ironically enough - lead me away from evolutionary psychology research and towards the actual psychotherapy I do now. It was the theory that most perfectly dovetailed with something I had pretty much believed for a large portion of my life but didn't know there was a theory to explain it.

One of my favorite quotes was also spawned by the theory - by Edward Jones who responded to Lee Ross's initial publication of the idea by saying he found the term (fundamental attribution error) "overly provocative and somewhat misleading" before adding "Furthermore, I'm angry that I didn't think of it first."

Anyway, it was my consistent questioning of the extrapolated labels that had been decided upon through observation of unrelated personality characteristics that convinced me I might possibly make a good therapist (ie, a personal desire to avoid the behavior by which conclusions are jumped to in order to avoid the complex entanglements that invariably come up by actively jumping right into said entanglements and attempting to....uh....detangle them).

When it comes down to it, this is truly ashame... as there is no reason not to have the two different groups and one is truly not better nor worse than the other... just different... Our crew loves working with both "Reel and Real" as they afford great opportunities to show off the differences in a positive light and still teach...as film/myth history is just as important as teaching the factual history...I find it fascinating how one develops or leads to the other and the then back again...

You are right - but until people stop stereotyping, it's something that we will have to deal with - both good and bad. On the upside, the more individuals can participate in conversations like this - and actively learn about these attributional biases and errors and such - the more they can become aware of the behaviors and attempt to avoid them. If only there were a way to make it sound less.....academically obtuse. lol

Sterling - are you using the MultiQuote or reply functions?

Back on topic, I know the in/out group thing is easiest to set example to with the PC/non-PC pirates (because of the fairly obvious distinctions between the two), but I think to add to more confusion, there are various striations and styles of PC re-enacting that are likely more at play with this discussion than with the PC/non-PC thing. I think many have within this discussion have done a good job at illustrating some of the many styles of historical re-enacting. It is also my observation that most re-enactors do tend to work in varying styles of re-enactments, some more in one style, some more in others... With a fair number that are fairly migrant and work in many if not all styles.

Glad to make you grin, Mickey!

And you are correct about the secondary stickiness. I've been avoiding broaching that as it is a topic I feel would become more volatile. PC/Non-PC is more broad and easily recognizable and less likely to be taken personally.

Look, we're never going to bridge the divide between historical and pollywood pirates. We all do our thing. But to assume that elite means putting someone down because they are not stitched up right is a bad assumption. It is just someone who is at the top of their game, either as a historical interpreter or a street player. There are some (many?) who do not aspire to either group. They go to the renfaires in whatever their kit is and spend the day doing the pub crawl. They interact mostly within their own group and that's fine for them. They are not interested in how the public sees them or even how other pyrates see them. That's fine. Without them, there would be no dividing line to separate the elitists.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that was a perfect example of the Fundamental Attribution Error!

You state that "pollywood pirates" are only interested in renfaires and pub crawls - both of those are assumptions and are equally as inaccurate as you say the impression you've gotten of an elitist as a negative is. But in that statement you have made something of a slur (pollywood) as well as made assumptions against people who are not "on top of their game" and do not "aspire" to be/do more.

I am not ignoring that you give "street performers" credability of a sort, but merely asking that you look to how you language also puts them down.

For clarity, I also did not state that ALL PC pirates put non-PC pirates down. If that were the case, I would not be involved in this conversation at all. But I started out in March 2008 as a non-historical pirate. I went to pirate day at the local Renfaire. I typically went to renfaire about once a year or so, and had standard rennie garb - so I added stereotypical elements and called it pirate. In fact, here's a picture from that morning before heading out to the faire:

I had fun - enough so that I decided to attend PiP, on my own, without knowing a single soul in the community beyond what I learned in about 5 weeks of posting here (intermittently at best, due to school) before the event. But between March 08 and December 08, with no input from anyone else, I had begun to make changes to the clothing I had. I started opting for handspun and linen fabrics, got a pair of breeches (as interpretation that women were likely to dress like men on ships) and thus I was slightly better by the time PiP rolled around. But I still had zippered slouch boots, metal grommets, upholstery fabrics, and rennie bodices as well - though at PiP I purchased a weskit to further my gear.

The point being : this had nothing to do with how the public, how the rennies or how the pirates would view me - because I wasn't attached to any particular group. But to assume that I was uninterested or just out for a day of drinking is just as erroneous as the charges you level against the idea that elitist groups have a negative impact overall (which, interestingly enough, I don't believe anyone implied).

I can say that if I ran into someone who treated me, in the above garb, as if I WERE only interested in drinking at faire....well, I certainly wouldn't be part of this community. In fact, it would totally turn me off to the hobby as I would take it as a slight against my intellectual capacity based on what I was wearing and therefore having absolutely nothing to do with reality (ie fundamental attribution error! hehehe). However, I feel that I was lucky with the people who I did form relationships with, as they have helped me in research (and sewing - where I have limited ability) as well as teaching me various and sundry bits of data and skills. And because of those people, in a relatively short period, my kit has become much more accurate (following image from May 09 - a mere 5 months after PiP - and the boots are gone, though you can't see! LOL):

However, much like Mission - I have no interest in participating in elite events. Does this mean I don't "aspire" to more than what I have? Absolutely not. It just means that what I most appreciate about the hobby is the teaching/learning/community aspect. So, the real question to me is, how much does an elitist attitude damage that aspect?