From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 10:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 160, 10/6/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 160, October 6, 1994 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Note: Please dont' continue the "authenticity" arguments; the digest is several days behind the regular list, and this "discussion" has already caused enough heat and bad feelings. Thanks! Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Last chance: Clothing the American Woman Conference 18 C Hosiery sources More authenticity/culture/linguistic arguments No more authenticity wars ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 19:04:18 PST From: Laura Mcvay Subject: Last chance to register: Clothing the American Woman Conf. Text item: Text_1 Last chance to register for.... CLOTHING THE AMERICAN WOMAN 1840 TO 1865 SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, OCTOBER 15TH & 16TH, 1994 HOLIDAY INN, SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA Including Presentations by: SAUNDRA ALTMAN: the owner of PAST PATTERNS, a company that produces extremely well documented historic patterns, taken from original garments. Her recent study of hoop skirts and crinolines has turned up some really interesting, and unexpected, material. JUANITA LEISCH: author and lecturer. Her books include: Civil War Civilians (Thomas Publications, Gettysberg, 1994), The Family Photo Album, Children's Wear Daily(Wearlooms, 1993) and The Family Album, Ladies Wear Daily (1860 -1865) (Wearlooms, 1988). She recently was asked to be a consultant for an upcoming episode of A&E's Civil War Journal dealing with civilians. LIA GRAY ANDERSON: has been collecting, researching and reproducing antique clothing for over 20 years. She has served as a clothing consultant to a number of historic museum programs, and is currently the president of the Federation of Vintage Fashion. She is currently working on a book. ELIZABETH PIDGEON-ONTIS: is an expert costumer, her work has covered many eras and styles. She has been involved in costume conventions, history symposiums, historical films and living history reenactments. PRESENTATIONS INCLUDE: a review of the fashions of 1840 to 1865; stick out(corded) petticoats; crinolines and hoops; millinery and dressmaking skills; work clothes; historical accuracy; hairstyles and much, much more! The $120 registration fee to attend the Clothing the American Woman, 1840-1865 Conference will include: -the conference registration -all lectures -all handouts -a Saturday luncheon -a display of period garments -dealers room on Sunday. -refreshments on Sunday Clothing the American Woman, 1840 -1865 will be held in Emeryville, California. Centrally located, Emeryville is just minutes away from most San Francisco Bay Area communities. Accommodations are not included, however please let us know if you wish to stay at the hotel. Saturday will have a full day of classes, with the evening free to relax or see the sights in San Francisco. The area offers many excellent restaurants, with types and prices to please all tastes. On Sunday we will have a dealer's room set up for your shopping needs. Hard to find items such as millinery supplies, boning, books and patterns will be offered. Sunday afternoon will also have free time to go shopping at all those great fabric stores in Berkeley, which are just minutes away from our hotel. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv YES! I WANT TO ATTEND! Name:____________________________ Phone:__________________ Address:_________________________________________ State: _______ Zip:______________ Organization:_________________ Please Send Hotel Information:_______ Please make checks payable to Lia Anderson and send to: Clothing the American Woman For more information please write c/o Lia Anderson and Laura McVay or call: 510-658-3342 5856 College Ave., Box 141 Oakland, CA 94618 ------------------------------ From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:27:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 18th century stocking sources Having seen few sources offered for 18th century men's breeches' stockings, I thought I'd pass on a few I have seen: The Sutler of Mount Misery (G. Gedney Godwin) Box 100 Valley Forge, PA 19481 (215) 783-0670 mixed blend $6.75 medium wool ribbed $ 8.95 heavy wool ribbed $8.95 Warning- prices from an out of date catalog..... Jas. Towsend & Son, Inc 106 South First Street P.O. Box 415 Piercton, IN 46562 1-800-338-1665 Heavy woll stockings $10.50 medium wool stockings $9.00 (again, a slightly dated catalog) The Smoke and Fire Company P.O. Box 166 Grand rapids, Ohio 43522 (419) 832-0303 "over the knee Fox River" $11.50 cotton stockings $6 100% hand knit wool $38.00 (catalog just arrived, and up to date). Hope this helps, and I would loike to see other sources for 18th century clothing items listed now and then. Bryan Baloo@tamu.edu ------------------------------ From: RCarnegie@aol.com Date: Sat, 01 Oct 94 02:39:20 EDT Subject: Authenticity I thought that I would add my dried wood before the fires have cooled. Like most I take offense to the American comments. I have commented upon Carioline's remarks before, but i hope that I have not been considered to be attacking her. Generally I agree with her, or at least parts of what she says. I am a fond believer in authenticity, as those who know me can attest. If anything I would be added to the list referred to as "costume police" as can Walter Nelson, who I believe first mentioned the term here. Much of my sewing is by hand, using hand woven and dyed fabrics. I am however hired to interpret history, and it is important that I be correct. The difficulty with authenticity levels comes form the various forms that are practiced here in the United States as the members of this newsletter can attest. Some events are more authentic than others, some forms of costuming are more authentic than others, it will probably always be that way. To the terms "Authenticity Police" or "Costume Nazi" these are of course negative terms and they are used in a negative way. They are not intended however toward that helpful soul who tries to provide hints towards improving one's impression. They are intended to reflect the tactless," I am better than you because I am authentic attitude". Now remember, I consider myself hardcore authentic, I do not mean this as an attack on authenticity, I worship authenticity! There are places at least on this side of the pond where authenticity is not the goal. My brethren forcing themselves down the throats of the infidels is what causes this negative reaction. As far as this being an American phenomenon, try attending English Civil War Society events, you will see what I refer to reflected there in your green and pleasant land. As to the purpose of the newsletter? Discussion, and that is what we are doing, however no need to get nasty or personal! By the by, the method used by Civil war reenactors and long marches to prevent chafing, corn starch. Not period of course for Kentwell (since in this reference corn equals maize) but useful and more correct than Bike shorts! To each their own. Wish I knew you personally Caroline, look me up if your ever in sunny California. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Oct 94 14:29:22 PDT From: aterry@Teknowledge.COM (Allan Terry) Subject: Authenticity The discussion of authenticity has raised two questions in my mind. (1). Why are people interpreting disagreement in views in terms of "attack" and "defense"? Most of the disagreement has been very polite and not personal. (2). My opinions about authenticity relate not to whether it is desirable in itself, but whether it is socially desirable to press unasked-for advice on others, whether nastily or politely-but-persistently. I can't judge whether the personal acquaintances of members of this list are asking for advice. But, as I have pointed out, we all have at our disposal the resources of public libraries, university libraries, museum exhibits, etc., plus the intelligence to use these sources. And we can all _request_ advice from our friends, and some of us from the h-costume list. So my question is: If you still have a _desire_ to give people unasked-for advice, what are your motives? Really? Fran Grimble ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 11:42:07 -0700 From: "Sarah E. Goodman -- unless it's Clint Bigglestone" Subject: Police States My anthropological soul in prompting me to the discuss the developement of the expressions "costume police" and "authenticy police". Below is my experience with the expressions; I'd appreciate reports from other cultural outposts. As far as I can tell, this phrase evolved from the main-stream Americanism (in use primarily by urban career women) "fashion police". As originally used, one did not refer to another individual as a member of the fashion police; instead, one evoked the police in reaction to something seen on the street (e.g. "the spider-web stockings that woman is wearing with her dress-for-success suit look like a job for the Fashion Police"). At some point (at least three years ago--which is when I first heard it) the term was translated into costumers groups, sometimes as fashion police and sometimes as "costume police". Same behind-the-hand, sota voce, "catty" usage (although there is so much MORE to comment on in costuming, because authenticity and technique become as important as fashion sense). Next evolution (a year or so ago) was to put someone down by stating that he or she "thinks s/he is a member of the fashion/costume police". This seemed to cover both laying down the law in public ("Elizabethans NEVER work fushia") as well as gratuitous direct comments to people about their clothing. I'm not sure when "authenticity" was substituted for "costume", but I've only seen it here. Interestingly, if you go back and read the traffice people seldom actually apply it to other individuals. We say "I don't want to sound like a member of the AP" or "this may bother the AP" or whatever. However, this doesn't seem to stop people from feeling they have been accused of being Authenticity Police. For the related term "costume Nazi", I think we have Rush Limbaugh to blame. He as managed to trivialize "Nazi" to apply to anyone who doesn't agree with him and wants someone to change or conform to some standard. In mainstream existance I see an interesting break-down in who uses the formulation; people who don't have anything resembling personal involvement with the Third Reich seem to be perfectly comfortable using it, but those who have reason to view the Nazi party as more than something-awful-that-happened-in- Germany-a-while-ago find the use (and implied trivialization) as offensive. To step away from my position of anthroplogical detachment for a moment--I'd really like to request that each of you think well before using the expression "costume Nazi". I'm Jewish and grew up knowing "lucky" ones who got out with only numbers tatooed on their arms and memories of living in hell; had I been born only somewhat earlier it could have been me. I find the usage offensive because it references a great evil to describe a relatively minor one. (At least I don't believe anyone in the costuming world wants to solve authenticity problems with a Final Solution!) I also know that the usage is deeply distrubing and painful (to the point of brining on near-suicidal dispair) to some people and I don't think it is kind or humane to use the phrase lightly. Resume anthro mode, Mr. Sulu--- I really would appreciate comments on the history of this usage, with cites if possible. Thanks, Sarah ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 11:42:59 -0700 From: "Sarah E. Goodman -- unless it's Clint Bigglestone" Subject: RE: Authenticity Fran Grimble raises two very good points about this discussion-- > (1). Why are people interpreting disagreement in views in terms of > "attack" and "defense"? Most of the disagreement has been very polite and > not personal. I agree and I've been kind of wondering this myself, without being able to phrase it as well. If I remember the discussion that percipitated this whole argument this time around, it started out with a question (which I think I may have actually raised) about how people dealt--authetically or otherwise--with a specific problem (chaffing thighs). People then proposed solutions of varying degrees of authenticity, usually accompanied by their personal justification for doing whatever. Then suddenly, BOOM, there people were being accused of accusing other people of joining the costume police. "I choose to do it this way" is NOT an attack. Nor, for that matter is "I don't understand why you say X is so, when the following cites say Y". This whole thing reminds me to a certain extent of my mother-in-law, a generally lovely lady who doesn't beleive in raising your voice and who has stopped several interesting and spirited dinner-table conversations dead because she wants us to "stop fighting". While there are some things which can be stated as unrefutable fact (the Elizabethans NEVER wore polyester) many of the "facts" we discuss here are based on a very limited historical record and open to interpretation and discussion. And much of what we discuss does not deal with issues of historical fact, but rather with how we use those facts and other influences in our costuming. > 2). My opinions about authenticity relate not to whether it is desirable > in itself, but whether it is socially desirable to press unasked-for > advice on others, whether nastily or politely-but-persistently. I think "press" and "persistantly" are probably the really active words here. Frankly, I don't even mind unasked-for rude advice much, IF the person gives it and then shuts up. But once I've said "well, this is my compromise" I've addressed their issue and there isn't any more to discuss. That being said, I really don't understand why this argument started. Almost everything that gets discussed on this list comes from someone asking for advice in the first place, and the advice seems to be handed out fairly reasonably and politely. Usually, in fact, people here cite sources, provide caveats about possible historical questions, and give explanations and justifications for compromises. I like this, because I don't beleive complete historical accuracy is possible once you get beyond the event horizon of any given fashion (too much has changed in even the last 30 years, let alone 300); I appreciate that people give me enough information to help me choose my own compromises. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 10:47:17 +1000 From: Joanne.Ellem@healthsci.utas.edu.au (Joanne Ellem) Subject: The crux of the matter. "I thought I would add my dried wood before the fires have cooled. Like most I take offense to the American comments." You know what? when I found out about the newsgroup, i was really excited. I have been interested in costume and fashion for years now, I have always been avidly studying costume sewing and researching. It has been a great source of joy. So when I heard of the group, I thought how marvellous it would be o be able to learn from others all over the world. What I did learn was that anyone with opinions and advice was labelled a "Costume Nazi". This is the second posting I have done. And it's not about costume. The first time I posted was not about costume. It was defend some-one else. My posting in defense of Carolyn was very carefully thought out. I was trying to smooth ruffled eathers. I was pointing out that because this group encompasses other countries, that there were cultural differences o onsider. And that The American imput was the largest, maybe some considerations should be made for people who don't see the world the same way you folks do. So that was the offensive American comment. If it is now offensive to ask you American posters to try and see things from a different point of veiw, then maybe, as I have stated before, this group is really only applicable to people in the US. Now I am upset. I was not not being rude or detremental to you folks in the states, and I was by no means being "un-American". As for the comment re;The Amrican civil War, nothing to could point out cultural differences then that. The only reason I know anything about it is because I did a year of school in kentucky, and was taught about it in History. In England, Australia, New Zealand, the reference is completely lost. Again, a cultural difference. And for the record, the term "Costume Nazi" is particularly ugly. And as has been posted in a prior letter, Jewish Americans find it distasteful and I don't blame them. It was the nazis who pounded England with huge bombs all during the war, from 1939 - 1945. Thousands and thousands of ordinary people lost their lives, as was the case right across Europe. It is not a funny or light or flip term. What really upsets me is that I even have to make a posting like this, and now defend the things I said when all I was trying to do help. What is going on? Jo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Oct 94 17:37:47 PDT From: aterry@Teknowledge.COM (Allan Terry) Subject: Nationality I've been trying to avoid the topic of nationality so often raised here. However, having received the enclosed message I need to comment once and for all. First, I don't read message headers well enough to tell what nationality someone is unless they explicitly say so. Second, no reasonable person is prejudiced against anyone else because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status--or nationality. (The Internet conceals many of these factors anyway.) I think Americans in general are pro-British, since the two countries share a common language and culture, and many of us have British ancestry. My own family is British. My father's grandfather and several of his brothers emigrated to Tennessee from near Swineshead. I have been to England and experienced a very strange sensation that I had been there before, because it all seemed so familiar. (No, I don't believe in reincarnation.) Third, the points I have been raising apply to unwanted social interactions. I think it reasonable and part of the purpose of this group to ask for advice, and having asked for it to receive it. Or to tell people you discovered a great book, or source for supplies, or interesting fact, or whatever. What I object to is people who you meet at an event making unsolicited and often negative comments on what you are wearing (which is impossible on this list since no one can see what you are wearing). Although I think it is fine for people to ask for advice in a social context, I also think they are intelligent enough to _ask_ if they want it. And although I think it is legitimate for an educational group, such as a museum, to impose costume standards, I think the standards should be imposed by a formally appointed person or committee, not anybody who happens along. Fourth, although people on this group have different opinions from me and from each other, I doubt these differences have anything to do with their nationality. They are probably due more to the type of social or professional costume group the person belongs to, plus their personal experiences and temperament. I see absolutely no need for everybody to agree and doubt they will anyway. Fran Grimble The following is an included message: [Editor's note -- the message has been removed from the digest as it was revealed to be from private e-mail and not a public message. It was included accidently by Fran and she apologizes and explains in Digest 161.] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 20:24:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Authenticity On Sat, 1 Oct 1994, Allan Terry wrote: > The discussion of authenticity has raised two questions in my mind. > > (1). Why are people interpreting disagreement in views in terms of "attack" > and "defense"? Most of the disagreement has been very polite and not > personal. My answer will stray afield from my hobby (costuming) to my career(?) linguistics. It has been observed, from the ways in which people discuss argument/disagreement, that we have an underlying metaphor by which we conceptualize this activity: argument _is_ war. In other words, part of the (largely unconscious) understanding of the thing we call "argument" (and by this I include the calm and objective "arguments" of scholarly discourse) includes an assumption that it is structured as a war. We have to work very hard _not_ to use the vocabulary of combat in the course of talking about arguments. This isn't to say that such a metaphor for argument is either good or bad, merely that it exists; and _knowing_ that it exists may help people look beyond the vocabulary and filter out the in appropriate parts of the metaphor. (My reference for this: "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson -- a fascinating book even if I _didn't_ have to read it for class.) Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ From: close@lunch.asd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Authenticity wars: TAKE THEM OFF THIS LIST NOW! Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 22:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Flames, authenticity wars, discussions of police states, bad etiquette like quoting private e-mail to the group, and a general bad attitude DO NOT BELONG ON THIS LIST! I said it last time and I'll say it again: TAKE THESE ARGUMENTS TO PRIVATE E-MAIL AND OFF THIS LIST! Otherwise we're going to start booting offenders off this list. No last minute additions, no "I have to say this before the embers die", no defending someone else, no defending any country, NOTHING! That's it! There's nothing more to say about this type of argument on this list -- it does NOT belong here. Take to the newsgroups or take it to private e-mail. You've all been officially warned. Further offenders will be dealt with harshly. We now return you to regularly scheduled historic costume discussions. :-) -- Diane Close close@lunch.asd.sgi.com I'm at lunch today. :-) ---------------------------- End of Volume 160 -----------------------