Pros / Cons, and opinions on Re-enactors

[RyanShort1]

Ok, so can we move the stuff related to reenacting and whether it's wrong, right, silly, or virtuous over here instead of the Airshow Horror Stories thread?

Thanks,

Ryan

[cco23i]

Sorry Ryan, I just got kinda defensive. As I see it us doing a ground crew impression and being able to DO THE JOB also ADDS to the airshow. Just ask the CAF at Midland, they seem quite happy with our display to help enhance the aircraft of WW2. With the added dimension of the reenactors / living historians I and many others think it helps to "tell the story" of the air AND ground crews of WW2 and other wars.

Scott

[Warbird Kid]

Yeah, I feel its long overdue for a thread of its own. Hopefully the horror stories thread will get back on topic. (no thanks to me) But it seems at least that both of you guys (Ryan & Scott) see the purpose of reenacting. I mean, I dont see i as a childish foolish idea. It only enhaces the public's interpertation of the time period were trying to convey. But to each his own.

[cco23i]

Exactly Chris! The thing I love is when a WW2 crew chief or other ground crewman (or woman) come up and thank us for portraying their contribution to the war.

Scott

[N3Njeff]

[quote="Warbird Kid"]Yeah, I feel its long overdue for a thread of its own. Hopefully the horror stories thread will get back on topic. (no thanks to me) But it seems at least that both of you guys (Ryan & Scott) see the purpose of reenacting. I mean, I dont see i as a childish foolish idea. It only enhaces the public's interpertation of the time period were trying to convey. But to each his own.[/quote
Think this topic has had its time under the spot light before. I believe there will always be people that dont understand. Myself, I have done living history for the Vietnam war for the last 15 years representing a truck driver. I have attended 3 reunions since 2000 and NOT ONE has objected to what I was doing. I was never in the military and they all know that. Their satisfaction is knowing that I am preserving the history that were apart of and that somebody cares about guys who "just drove a truck".

Now for me personally I will also use it as a learning tool. I am now joining a reenactment unit and gearing up for drills and training for something that happened almost 150 years ago...........WHY you might think?????? Because my 3rd great granfather did it for real so I could share a bit of his life 150 years later and have his name called out in the same unit he served in once again!

[Jerry O'Neill]

Thanks for moving this subject to it's own topic. More from me to follow.
Jerry

BTW, why is this in the RetroAviation threads?
Shouldn't this be in the WIX Hangar or Reenactor Barracks sections?
I'd never have looked for it here.

Last edited by Jerry O'Neill on Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[Jarink1]

If the uniforms are appropriate to the plane, vehicles, or show then I think they're great.

Can anyone explain the difference between wearing old style uniforms and painting a restored warbird in something other than its original paint job? Look at 99% of the planes in the registry here. How many of them are painted as a different (historical) plane? They didn't 'earn' the markings they're wearing, did they?

In both cases it's a matter of honoring the history. This is especially true for the many "data plate" restorations where there's absolutely nothing on or in the plane that flew with that serial number or paint job in WWII.

[Kyleb]

I'm not into the re-enactment thing at all. It doesn't bother me, but it isn't anything I am enthusiastic about either.

To each his/her own, I say.

[aeroeng]

I'm not into the re-enactment thing at all. It doesn't bother me, but it isn't anything I am enthusiastic about either.

To each his/her own, I say.

I'm kind of the same. My kids really like it a lot though and think it's super cool. I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone comes up and starts telling my kids that those guys shouldn't be wearing those uniforms because they weren't in the military so they didn't earn it, I'd laugh at him and tell him to take his Favre jersey off. I saw a lot of kids dressed up as soldiers at Halloween and it didn't bother me and I didn't hear about anyone else complaining about it. I remember when I was young going to a costume party dressed up as a Marine (my brother -in-law was/is a Marine and gave me a set of his Desert Storm fatigues as a gift) and my girlfriend dressed up as a military nurse and nobody complained and the ex & current military guys there thought it was cool. I guess my point/opinion is if you don't like it ignore it. No need to get wound up about it because you'll end up looking kind of weird running around making sure all re-enactors have been in the military. Now if someone is speaking at a Graduation Ceremony and faking to be a former soldier that's totally different of course.

aeroeng

[12XU2A3X3]

If the uniforms are appropriate to the plane, vehicles, or show then I think they're great.

Can anyone explain the difference between wearing old style uniforms and painting a restored warbird in something other than its original paint job? Look at 99% of the planes in the registry here. How many of them are painted as a different (historical) plane? They didn't 'earn' the markings they're wearing, did they?

In both cases it's a matter of honoring the history. This is especially true for the many "data plate" restorations where there's absolutely nothing on or in the plane that flew with that serial number or paint job in WWII.

well: an F6F-5 paint job on an F6F-5K is more representative and effective then an F6F-5K paint job on an F6F-5K.

all those QF-4E and QRF-4Cs at Tyndall may or may not have been in SEA (probably yeah), but not necessarily. but it's the ubiquitous paint scheme and it more effective. hell, the Collings bird wasn't flown by Steve Richie or Dan Cherry.

[k5083]

Can anyone explain the difference between wearing old style uniforms and painting a restored warbird in something other than its original paint job?

Yes. Planes are not people and therefore one does not suspect that an airplane is stroking its own ego, impersonating another plane or trying to bask in another plane's glory, indulging in immature fantasy, or other things that one suspects many re-enactors are really doing, even when they claim they are just "honoring" or "educating". Also, you cannot blame an airplane for being unaware of how silly it looks. (Although, if airplanes have any soul or consciousness at all, the CAF Wildcat probably is at least a little embarrassed.)

August

[the330thbg]

So is where we are posting AIRSHOW HORROR STORIES now?

[rwdfresno]

I'll include my post from the other thread:

"...The point I was trying to make is that flying around or working on a WWII airplane is no more or less dishonorable than wearing WWII vintage military uniforms for display purposes. You don't have to "earn" the right to fly your airplane anymore than anyone has to "earn" the right to display a WWII uniform by wearing it. They are simply artifacts to be owned by people to be used as they please. The military sold uniforms, equipment, and airplanes for pennies on the dollar to civilians and they certainly didn't think anyone had to earn them.
I won't trivialize the efforts by the glorious men who fought the war because they are super heroes in my book but plenty of civilians spent plenty of their hard earned tax dollars to buy the stuff and plenty of oil rig drillers, ship workers, machine operators, steel workers worked pretty darn hard in dangerous jobs to get the war won as well yet we don’t hold a hard hat to this mystical place of honor that nobody can wear without “tarnishing” the efforts that these folks made. By the way you don’t earn a uniform, they give them to you in boot camp, I know I’ve been there, and all I had to do was pass a physical and sign on the dotted line. Anyone that thinks you are tarnishing the sacrifices that veterans have made by wearing a uniform has a pretty low opinion of what those folks did. What they did can never be tarnished..."

I will also add that most of the veterans I have met, many of which are the epitome of THE REAL DEAL seem to look at folks engaging in living history as a positive thing. One of many examples of this is the several Doolittle Raider reunions I attended and how much the Raiders loved when I would attend in uniform especially with their bomb group patches on my jacket. They would light up and talk for hours and give me a good natured ribbing about that fact that my A2 jacket pockets were too big and that they could barely fit a pack of cigarettes in theirs.

People can give you all sorts of examples about overly gung-ho redactors who are "playing army" or are acting like idiots but the fact is that there are idiots in every hobby. I have plenty of horror stories about warbird pilots and at the same time I can name a dozen who would spend their own stack of cash for gas to take up a veteran at no charge just so he can relive the glory days. I think it is no different than the American Flag which in my book as arguably the most sacred of all Patriotic things and if an immigrant from Indonesia is flying one in front of his house I’m not going to say “hey he isn’t from America who the heck is he to be flying that flag.” Instead I’m going to think “wow that is great he loves this country as much as I do, I’m glad he is showing it by flying the flag to honor this country.”

Ryan

[RyanShort1]

Can anyone explain the difference between wearing old style uniforms and painting a restored warbird in something other than its original paint job?

Yes. Planes are not people and therefore one does not suspect that an airplane is stroking its own ego, impersonating another plane or trying to bask in another plane's glory, indulging in immature fantasy, or other things that one suspects many re-enactors are really doing, even when they claim they are just "honoring" or "educating". Also, you cannot blame an airplane for being unaware of how silly it looks. (Although, if airplanes have any soul or consciousness at all, the CAF Wildcat probably is at least a little embarrassed.)

August

In my opinion, without a doubt, those are legitimate concerns...

Ryan

[rwdfresno]

I have to disagree with this. We all know that these aircraft are owned by, you guessed it, people. In the same manner people decide how to decorate them, how to use them, and which pilots to "impersonate" while flying them around with all of those kill markings on them. There is no difference from an airplane and a article of clothing in this debate.

Ryan

Can anyone explain the difference between wearing old style uniforms and painting a restored warbird in something other than its original paint job?

Yes. Planes are not people and therefore one does not suspect that an airplane is stroking its own ego, impersonating another plane or trying to bask in another plane's glory, indulging in immature fantasy, or other things that one suspects many re-enactors are really doing, even when they claim they are just "honoring" or "educating". Also, you cannot blame an airplane for being unaware of how silly it looks. (Although, if airplanes have any soul or consciousness at all, the CAF Wildcat probably is at least a little embarrassed.)

August