Re: MtMan-List: misc topics

["Matt Richards" <backcountry@braintan.com>]

 Capt Lahti says:
So how does that allow us to go Willie Nillie in
>creating new and individual ways of dressing for the present day historical
>reenactment? The bottom line is that if you can't place it in the time and
>locality of the event you are reenacting it really isn't the proper thing
to do.
>That people do it don't make it right!

I don't believe I or anyone in this conversation has professed an interest
in going 'willie-nillie' in creating new and individual way of dressing for
the present day historical re-enactment. That this is a current problem or
gripe, I recognize, but that isn't the direction of this conversation.


Matt Richards
www.braintan.com
2755 Sinclair Creek Rd
Eureka MT 59917
406-889-5532

Use your brains at www.braintan.com for natural tanning
and leather resources, online articles, reviews, tools, books
and class schedules.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Lahti <lahtirog@gte.net>
To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: misc topics


>Matt,
>
>Matt Richards wrote:
>
>> 1. You're right in that I have always assumed that at least some of the
mtn
>> men made their own clothes and accoutrements.....and that this lead me to
>> assume that they would improvise a bit to suit their own needs. Do others
on
>> this list agree with this assertion that nearly all of their clothing
(aside
>> from mocs) was purchased?
>
>Thanks for the opportunity to vote on something. I agree in principle with
>Allen's assertion that most if not all their clothing was purchased and I
would
>add, or made for them by indian or white seamstress' on the scene. There
were a
>lot more divers peoples (other than our heroes) on the scene than most
realize.
>many of the engage's or hired help had families with them and many of these
>people came from the original fur trade activities in the Old North West.
>French, Half breeds, eastern indians, etc. Considering the evidence put
forth on
>the amount of dry goods and sewing supplies sent west, one can extrapolate
a
>thriving "cottage' industry going on for anyone able to sew garments in the
>"white" fashion.
>
>2. I very clearly did not hear any real evidence or sources for leather
garments
>of the period being made out of bark tan.....only inferences from the fact
that
>there were a lot of tanneries and garment makers. I would still love to
know of
>some...not to challenge what you are saying (though I do doubt it somewhat)
but
>for my own knowledge.
>
>Can't add anything on this other than the volume of such organized business
and
>home oriented tanning activity that was going on.
>
>> 3. Have read several times the resource you mention. Not a primary source
by
>> any means, but some interesting stuff. (Welsh, Peter.  "Tanning in the
>> United States to 1850").
>>
>> 4. The quotes regarding 'leather' breeches are highly open to
>> interpretation. While there was often some clear distinctions between
>> 'buckskin' being what we call brain or smoke tan, and 'leather' meaning
>> bark-tan, this distinction doesn't seem to be any where near universal,
or
>> even necessarily predominant.
>
>If that is the case then we will just have to live with the knowledge that
>Breeches made of leather are proper and can be made of indian dressed hides
or
>other period correct leathers until a primary source comes along that says
one
>or the other was the way it was done.
>
>> 6. I think your comment comparing period guns and clothing is relevant in
>> some ways, but not completely. With the guns you are comparing pieces of
>> technology, and a knowledge of the technology. With clothing, at least
the
>> context I've been writing and reading about on this list, the question is
>> more along the lines of the assumption that one could personalize one's
own
>> clothing within the existing technology and knowledge of the day. I don't
>> know practically anything about muzzleloading guns, but I'll try to make
an
>> analogy: Its more like some-one deciding to shorten the stock so that it
fit
>> their body better, or devised a different way of attaching the strap than
>> was the 'norm' for such and such a reason.
>
>If we compare the guns of the time and how they were thought of and use
that as
>an analogy of how these people may have dealt with the subject of personal
>clothing then we would see very little "personalizing" of clothing. I don't
>recall seeing any period guns that were markedly altered other than some
>decorative things like brass tacks (which is probably by indians) and
trying to
>add a rear sight to a smooth gun which was done quit a bit. There were many
>field repairs with wire and raw hide and damaged muzzles were cut down to
allow
>continued use of the gun. there are some rare examples of trade guns being
cut
>down at both ends to facilitate use on horse back or for concealment but
this
>was not wide spread either. So how does that allow us to go Willie Nillie
in
>creating new and individual ways of dressing for the present day historical
>reenactment? The bottom line is that if you can't place it in the time and
>locality of the event you are reenacting it really isn't the proper thing
to do.
>That people do it don't make it right!
>
>> I kind of compare it to food. When you cook food at a re-enactment, do
you
>> only use recipes that you can document? Or do you think that it is
somewhat
>> reasonable to take some of the fixings that were available and used at
the
>> time and place, and cook them up without a documentable recipe? (with the
>> obvious exception of it not being appropriate to take period fixings and
>> deliberately make some favorite dish of a later time.....that not
>> acceptable).
>
>There are many that try very hard to eat as the historical record says they
ate.
>There are also many modern reasons why this is not always done. I and I'm
sure
>many others try very hard, within the bounds of what is known, to walk the
>straight and narrow but when I can't, I try to be honest about it and say
this
>is probably not right but for now it is the best I can do. I also try hard
not
>to do things that are easily visible and are not period correct because
many new
>folks will look at me walking down the trail in my "Pendlton Wool Chief
Joseph
>Blanket Capote" and think, "gee that's a beautiful coat and Old Uncle Rog,
who's
>been in this for 30 years, always does things right so that must be ok".
>
>> As far as 'fashion police' go, I'm sure they existed. They've existed in
>> every time and place, including our own. But like the guys on the
>> yellowstone who grew their hair long and wore indian clothes, ...there
have
>> always been people who didn't follow the rules of the fashion police. And
>> there is a huge leap from altering period style so that they fit the mtn
man
>> of the time's needs, to wholesale adopting a different style. My argument
is
>> that people would have altered stuff when it made practical utilitarian
>> sense (and occasionally just because).
>
>I just loved Allens observations on "fashion police" and the fact that you
don't
>hear about the "accouterment police" or the "gun police" or the "camp gear
>police" just says that people think they should be able to wear what ever
they
>have spent their money on without critique. And my argument is that they
didn't
>alter stuff when it made practical utilitarian sense in our modern context.
Are
>your attitudes the same as your grandfathers or will they be shared by your
>great grand children? Hardly. Well the attitudes of people in the 18th and
19th
>Century were a lot different than those we harbor and live our modern lives
by
>now. If we want to pretend to be living in those bygone eras' we are
obligated
>to try to think like they did. What innovative ways would you portray some
>persona from the 13th or 14th Century if you were a member of the Honorable
>"Society for Creative Anachronism" 'It sure is impractical to were these
cloths
>so I think I will be innovative and change the style and fabric to a more
>practical cut, etc. that I am aware of from the hundreds of years of
history
>that followed those early Centuries'. Silly isn't it?
>
>This ain't the sixties and I ain't no free spirit "flower child" no more.
I'm
>trying to recreate the American life style of the 18th and 19th Century and
>their "free spirit" is just romanticism on our part. I  remain....
>
>YMOS
>Capt. Lahti'
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>