Forming Re-Enactor Umbrella Organizations

[Hawkyns]

Well, I am still in an organisation. I'm a member of the Royal Irish Artillery, which as a unit is a member of the British Brigade. Being there lets me get my fix of large scale battles. I don't have to hold my own insurance, come up with a sixpounder plus transport and crew for it, or deal with organisers as an individual. As a unit, we form a commisary for musters so that we don't have to do all our own cooking but can share the duties. We have a section of the tent line, so that we don't have to go looking for camp space when we go to a battle. Most major battles and sites don't allow individuals or 'walk ons' as they are known, so I get to play at Fort Ticonderoga or Monmouth Battlefield.

Blackwell's Regiment, which was my ECW regiment was the Third Company of the Regiment, the first two companies of which were based in England. We operated independantly on this side of the pond, but when going to England it ensured that we were allowed to participate in their battles and gave us a 'home' across the pond. It is no longer an active unit due to the fact that people moved due to jobs, and the fact that ECW waned seriously after the 350th.

I think the solution is that those of us who do believe in the idea of an umbrella organisation should form it and work with it. Freebooters can then see our benefits and decide for themselves if it is worth it. The biggest question for me would be whether we formed it as individuals or as crews. I'd vote for joining as individuals. That would give us the protection and, hopefully, insurance, and still leave our individual impressions in our own hands.

Hawkyns

[Mission]

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. (Some events already require re-enactors to be with a registered group, so this isn't new.) So 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. Is that a good thing?

[RedJessi]

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.

[RedJessi]

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.

[Capt. Sterling]

Mickey posted: . If it worked so well for you before, why aren't you still there?

Good question... the British Brigade worked great for us when we chose to do the AWI.. why are we still not there? Got tired of doing AWI..just got bored, as well as got married and supporting 4 horses is no longer feasible with two kids... so went and did numerous other time lines, all worked fine just have more fun with the GAoP time period strictly because the time frame is more interesting to me and always has been... now that there is an option to play in this time frame, I switched...

I still have friends that do AWI and they are still very active with the British Brigade and still very happy with it..for insurance and networking it always used to be a great tool...

[Capt. Sterling]

Jessi posted: 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.{/quote]

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...

[Capt. Sterling]

Damnation Blackjohn what's taking you so long?

[hurricane]

Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.

Groucho Marx

[Capt. Sterling]

Well said Hurricane...sniggering

[michaelsbagley]

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.

Finger meet nose. Thanks Red for helping make the point my mind seems to have been stuck on, but unable to communicate effectively!

[Capt. Sterling]

Ah see now there lies the rub...

Dutch is trying to organize a foundation that would open up and include even more groups that are currently getting shut out, offer them the help they might need to get up to speed with other groups, provide access to research that we might not be able to find on our own, along with possible insurance that might not always be provided by events to cover all our backsides...etc...etc...along with big toys that no one group might be able to ever purchase on their own...

granted you get someone in the mix with Colonel's disease and there will be issues, but what's to say we can't nip something in the bud when it starts to rear its ugly head?

Edited October 5, 2009 by Capt. Sterling

[Ransom]

Nip what in the bud...individualism, or megalomania? You risk killing both— one bad, one good.

In most of what I've ready about groups always being in flux ( which is true to some degree or another), everyone talked as if these spit-ups were done amicably, with everyone going their own way with "Hail fellows, well met, but we're going to go off and do..." My experience has been the opposite. Groups don't always expand, they explode. Members leave in anger, frustration, and then do all they can to bad-mouth the group they split from. The original group is fractured by loyalties within — some sympathizing with those who have left, and some staying loyal to the core group — torn as to which way they want to go.

I also don't think you can compare military reeactment core groups to pyracy. Military pyracy is an oxymoron. The very nature of the game we all play prevents a core group from being feasible or necessary. With military groups you have set uniforms, the precedent of following orders, and the preexisting division of units. With pyracy you have the opposite precedent. Rogue groups doing their own thing in direct opposition to existing maritime laws.

Individual events that cater to the needs and wants of the individual groups would serve the pyrate community better than an all-encompassing governing body.

[Capt. Sterling]

not individualism ... I was referring to Colonel's disease...a disease where one person thinks they know it all and dictates to everyone else how it should be..

Individualism should never been nipped in the bud...

and sorry to hear of your bad experiences with other groups...unfortunately human nature being what it is, some people just don't play nice...

[blackjohn]

Damnation Blackjohn what's taking you so long?

So far, I'm stumped.

[michaelsbagley]

No one questions the motives (that I can think of), I think most if not all here could agree that it is a noble idea. The problem rests in those with bad to very bad experiences will shun it based on past experience(s). Which admittedly is our issue. Except for how it can affect those who don't sign up. No matter how benevolent an intended a society is, it tends to create division between those involved and those not involved.

I agree the idea of a umbrella org is a good one, unfortunately I have yet to see one implemented on the scale of what would best work for the pirate re-enactment scene with enough checks and balances to make me comfortable. And sadly (I'm not trying to be a negative Nelly, just honest here), the checks and balances for a group as small as the scene is would be impossible in my estimation to implement.

On a more practical and less philosophic note, for those who already are insured? What gain is there? Are we stuck paying the bill twice just to be a part of the club? Or one could just say, the best chance for success umbrella org has (in my opinion) is developing a means to keep those capable and compatible included without being a member.

[Capt. Sterling]

Mickey, again good questions... all I can say is ask Dutch, he wants to sit down with folks and get their input...

And aye, we can understand some folks have had bad past experiences and that can cloud our judgment on future things,,, the same way those of us who have had good experiences can cloud our judgment thinking everything will be all right and we can miss the possible problems that might arise in the future as well...

so the only thing I can suggest is make a phone call and talk about it...or better yet, sit down with Dutch at the next event you are at together and talk to him...he is willing to listen. A lot of us are willing to listen... the thing is without the talking we will never be able to weed out the problems or come up with viable solutions (which in the long run may or may not work, but again, can't fix it unless we all know there is a problem in the first place.)

[Capt. Sterling]

And I guess with the insurance, it become an issue when there are enough of us without it and all of sudden we need it...

[RedJessi]

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.

Edited October 5, 2009 by RedJessi

[Ransom]

not individualism ... I was referring to Colonel's disease...a disease where one person thinks they know it all and dictates to everyone else how it should be..

Individualism should never been nipped in the bud...

and sorry to hear of your bad experiences with other groups...unfortunately human nature being what it is, some people just don't play nice...

But, does not a governing body, laying down rules, by it's very nature, nip some individualism in the bud? Not disagreeing with your statement, just wondering if everyone who ends up in a position to make decisions for the governing body would have such an open-mind?

Not all of my experiences, over of period of aprox. 35+ years of doing some kind of reenacting, have been bad. However, some have been horrendous, and caused wounds that never healed among the people involved. And you made my point...some people just don't play nice, and it has been my experience that the more power you give people, the less nice they can be.

Like Michael said, it is a very noble idea, but not very practical for the type of reenacting we do.

[Capt. Sterling]

Hmmm and then again, when the British Brigade had its very first meeting, reps were sent to that meeting from every active British unit at the time...we all sat down and discussed what we wanted and how it could be worked out... maybe that is what Dutch needs to do... a mini continental congress..

[Capt. Sterling]

And you made my point...some people just don't play nice, and it has been my experience that the more power you give people, the less nice they can be.[/quote}

Hence the quote Absolute power corrupts absolutely...

I would rather stick with Peter Parker...With great power comes great responsibility...

what's to stop a large group from stopping such an individual or perhaps a small group of like minded and abusive individuals? Mickey is correct, there is nothing wrong with creating a system of checks and balances and reviewing it on a yearly basis...

[callenish gunner]

 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...

This is too often the issue. Good positive communication has to occur with a reduction of "interference" to the message. If there is confusion on the part of the recipient it behooves them to rephrase the perceived message and ask for confirmation or clarification. Otherwise, both parties are going forward with misconceptions of what the other party to the communication process beleive to true.

We all have our own baggage coming into any discussion or dialogue, but when the honest two way process of communication shuts down for whatever reason, this is when the damage and frustration and hurt comes about.

What I had referred to earlier in response to Dutch and others was an umbrella organization that could provide liability insurance for participants in events and if membership for that purpose was limited to just that it might be at an associate level or as what Fort Zachary Taylor does is put participants on the rolls as a "park volunteer" to allow them blanket coverage. Or as another venue that I have volunteered with for 30 plus years for a nominal fee of $10 adds them to the coverage as associates without voting priveleges to the operational board of the group. These are logistical details for groups or individuals, that allow non-affiliated individuals to have liability coverage at group rates. It would not mean you must follow "dictates" of the umbrella organization other than in safety matters. When I was talking standards I was referring to matters of safety and handling such things as live steel or blackpowder; as some of us have seen in some of the cannon videos that have recently been linked to on the pub.

Individual crews would maintain autonomy of their own levels of encampment authenticity as influenced by the event standards and those would fall under the auspices of the event coordinator/site director. The "fight or flight" reaction is too often the knee-jerk reaction that folks adopt when confronted by criticism of any sort. I usually try my damnedest to try to offer any comments to anyone's kit as "you might find that___________ might be more accurate if you're concerned with actual period kit"

There are other times when "close" fills the needs of an event. Rather than create animosity between individuals or groups, since words from an individual are often perceived as from the group, after-action feedback stated in a positive fashion can have much more positive effect than putting people on the defensive or aggressive posture during events. And if these references are done in private and not in open forums, miscommunications have more likelihood to be worked out if time and care is taken to clear them up before they snowball into confrontations. All of this does depend on open and honest communication and a desire to share the message and not try to control the message. This is just my perception of what I have seen happen in many groups and forums.

[michaelsbagley]

Hmmm and then again, when the British Brigade had its very first meeting, reps were sent to that meeting from every active British unit at the time...we all sat down and discussed what we wanted and how it could be worked out... maybe that is what Dutch needs to do... a mini continental congress..

Okay, I am going to be a smart Alec here... And I beg you to please take this as a tongue in cheek exclamation and not a snipe...

But why don't we have that congress at the Santa Maria in May? No, it has to be the Blackbeard festival? Why not at Beaufort? How about at Searle's Raid? Why not PiP?

Everyone of those suggestions is a losing one, as invariably it will end up excluding some to many. And unfortunately the alternative of online discussion with the limitations of the media pretty much realistically excludes that idea. Geography was ever one of the biggest problems with this in the Viking re-enactment scene, and unfortunately one of my big contentions was that a few (a few with significant influence no less) were leveraging their influence to have the "congresses" at locations that benefited them. Not that I am accusing anyone of that, but I am trying to point out in a blunt way how big of an impact that will have.

[Capt. Sterling]

My reply to Mickey...

Understood... why not find a place that is sort of a middle ground that would make traveling somewhat more equal to those that want to get involved in the meeting? I personally would suggest making it, its own "event" so that there is no other distractions going on at the time... for example, the group is making head way and then all of a sudden has to stop the meeting to go out and fight a battle...snigger...we would be getting no where probably very quickly...

Just for an example, the first British Brigade meeting was a weekend meeting which concentrated only on that...

[michaelsbagley]

My reply to Mickey...

Understood... why not find a place that is sort of a middle ground that would make traveling somewhat more equal to those that want to get involved in the meeting? I personally would suggest making it, its own "event" so that there is no other distractions going on at the time... for example, the group is making head way and then all of a sudden has to stop the meeting to go out and fight a battle...snigger...we would be getting no where probably very quickly...

Just for an example, the first British Brigade meeting was a weekend meeting which concentrated only on that...

A great and positive suggestion, and I appreciate you taking my jocularity for what it was. But any meeting of the minds should include a few battles to blow off some steam!