how far does a person need to travel to be considered a "Tourist" ?

[Bushman]

It's become easier, largely because of the nature of the internet making it much more viable to service a niche market big enough to be profitable when geography matters so much less, to find a one-stop shop that will cater to "your" look, and very quickly you start to get more uniformity. London punks, New York punks, West Coast start to look the same. On the one hand I appreciate the ease and convenience of this era, on the other, I miss some of the creativity. But it's easy to miss the stimulation of tiems when it was much harder and forget that maybe I just wouldn't be able to find the clothes I want to wear but for this globalisation. I think it's been foru or five years nowsimce I last bought some trousers in a shop; to get them not only the cut I want aesthetically, but to even have a high enough waist to be remotely comfortable, needs must I go online.

It makes me think that, in some places, some people would be entirely incapable of dressing certain ways WITHOUT the internet, including us! In the case of punk clothing, as you pointed out, kids can simply go online, find the same clothes all of their friends are wearing, order it, and it's on their doorstep within the week. For us, the hat store has sadly gone away, and many of us wouldn't have access without the Internet being there for us.

Pretty much the same with the middle class suburban kids who were posing as punk or goth. (I'm probably dating myself horribly.)

Not at all! High schoolers have been posing as the "cool look" long before us, and I'll assume they'll be doing it long after us.

Whenever I see someone post that flag on FB I usually reply with something like this (and I have several that are similar):
View attachment 236580

I'm rather fond of this General Sherman meme.

 

[Edward]

It makes me think that, in some places, some people would be entirely incapable of dressing certain ways WITHOUT the internet, including us! In the case of punk clothing, as you pointed out, kids can simply go online, find the same clothes all of their friends are wearing, order it, and it's on their doorstep within the week. For us, the hat store has sadly gone away, and many of us wouldn't have access without the Internet being there for us.

Exactly so. I currently buy my underwear and some of my shirts locally; everything else in my wardrobe, including every single pair of trousers I currently own, was purchased online. Unless or until I can afford to go bespoke for everything, I simply cannot purchase trousers I can wear comfortably other than online.

 

[Woodtroll]

I'm rather fond of this General Sherman meme.

Not at all funny. A think a strong case could be made that there are quite a few northern cities that could be burned right now with no net loss to the country. Left to their own devices (and their own "industry"), they very likely would burn themselves given a little time.

It seems these threads always turn into a device for certain folks to smugly insult other people or ways of life. And no, I'm not talking about the "redneck" jokes; I'll answer to that or "hillbilly" if it's all in good humor and laugh along with you. I guess I should be thankful that "white trash" hasn't been thrown out yet, but at least that term seems to apply equally throughout most of the country.

 

[Bugguy]

I suggest a similar term for a Northern Southerner might be "y'allaboo."

Florence, KY doesn't get much more Northern Southern than this. The Mason-Dixon line, a.k.a. the Ohio River, is 5 miles up the 'I'.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, Civil War re-enacting is a real thing. And we, at the Fedora Lounge should understand the desire to reconnect with the past. But, then again, there is a difference between wanting to recapture some supposedly “romantic” aura of a historical moment (southern belles, dashing confederate officers on horseback) and wanting to legitimize a cause that was lost from the start and should not draw a breath in today’s world. Dixie May have been romantic in a certain anti-establishment sense in its day. Slavery was not. (Moderators: feel free to delete if I have crossed the “no politics” line, but I would hope that this is not an issue.)

Entire books have been written documenting how the whole "Lost Cause" myth and its associated iconography was deliberately manufactured around the turn of the 20th Century by persons with a vested interest in preserving a certain racial and economic status quo. It's unfortunate that too many who have accepted that myth over the last century haven't been willing to take a look behind the curtain.

Fortunately, of course, we're far beyond such self-serving mythologies today.

 

[Edward]

The kids have a word for people who obsessively identify with a culture with which they have no personal connection whatever -- "weeaboo," which originally meant someone who was so obsessed with anime that they identified beyond all reason with a stereotyped anime fan's idea of what Japanese culture was supposed to be. I suggest a similar term for a Northern Southerner might be "y'allaboo."

I can't help but wonder if that makes those of us striving to dress every day in a manner that went out of fashion ten years or more before we were born Vintaboos.

I grew up seeing rebel flags on the trucks of people who had never been south of the Mason-Dixon line. I always took it to mean "look at me! I'm really rebellious in my soul; even as I go to my deadend 9-to-5 job and then pick up the kids from daycare." Pretty much the same with the middle class suburban kids who were posing as punk or goth. (I'm probably dating myself horribly.)

I remember it being seen just as some sort of "cowboy flag" (I remember having some of the 'Britains' line of toy soldiers from the ACW. I had Union because I liked the blue uniforms better (!), so little brother ended up with the Johnny Rebs. While I have a fairly superficial level of understanding of that conflict, I think I first became aware of the flag controversy at a festival in the 90s, when the (American) band on stage demanded somebody in the audience stopped flying it. Likely that kid thought it was just the "Dukes of Hazzard flag". I think it was when I first read To Kill a Mockingbird when I was fifteen that I realised that a General Lee was not a car model. These days in the UK, it seems to be equally split between those who still think it's "just a cowboy flag" (line dancers in backwaters), and a subset of eighties rockabillies for whom it "symbolises our music" and will not be told any different. It's slowly disappearing from the scene as times evolve, though.

Of course, Civil War re-enacting is a real thing. And we, at the Fedora Lounge should understand the desire to reconnect with the past. But, then again, there is a difference between wanting to recapture some supposedly “romantic” aura of a historical moment (southern belles, dashing confederate officers on horseback) and wanting to legitimize a cause that was lost from the start and should not draw a breath in today’s world. Dixie May have been romantic in a certain anti-establishment sense in its day. Slavery was not. (Moderators: feel free to delete if I have crossed the “no politics” line, but I would hope that this is not an issue.)

I tend to draw something i a difference between those of their time who fought under the flag, and those who recussitated it in the early twentieth century to push another form of politics. I learned a lot about the ACW at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, actually (that and the exhibition in Ford's Theatre) when I was in DC. It was beautifully done there, too - present the facts, let the attendee make up their own mind. There is very much something in the human psychology that tneds to romanticise the past and the "doomed romantic". Then the nuances. What fascinated me when I visited Arlington was learning more about Lee himself. A confederate General who ceded out of loyalty to his men rather than great desire to cede, who despite advancing in the CSA never wore rank signifiers above what he'd worn in the US Army. The really fascinating thing, though, was that he already had plans to have his slaves declared free when he and his wife died, and in preparation, evne when it was illegal, was educating them so they would be literate and could 'cope'. Lee was certainly an interesting character. My biggest takeaway with the ACW, though, is that all too often it was the racism which goes under the radar. A terrible conflict, and one which could rival any 20th century tragedy in terms of the poor bugger conscript's experience on either side.

And also so many fascinating stories on both sides. The one that sticks in my mind, of all the Irish boys who fought and died on both sides, was the 10th Tennessee (I think!). Men from Ireland, the troops primarily from a Catholic background, the officers - elected by the men - Protestant. At the tiem, unlikely as a mix "back home"...

In terms of the re-enactment element, the one that fascinated me was a documentary I stumbled across years ago. A hardcore of reenactors woh, instead of driving to the site for the big battle reenactment, spent the week ahead of it marching the route the original union troops did, living how they lived, camping how they camped and eating as they did. They even had a couple of guys portraying CSA pows with them. One of the latter was a bit... unnerving - very deep in character and talked about "the coloureds". The Union boys were very interesting, though. To me, the more interesting bit than the battles (all pointing guns and playing soldier) is the living in between.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can't help but wonder if that makes those of us striving to dress every day in a manner that went out of fashion ten years or more before we were born Vintaboos.

I think we've all met people who carry around an overromanticized view of some particular time period, drawn entirely from popular culture -- movies, TV shows, comics, advertising, whatever, images of finely-tailored white people in hazy smoke-filled cocktail bars exchanging meaningful glances, square-jawed GIs in crisp, creased uniforms charging the beachhead, perky housewives vacuuming in pearls, perfectly-behaved kids who always know their place, etc. That kind of distorted romanticization is the very essence of "x-abooness."

 

[ChiTownScion]

Entire books have been written documenting how the whole "Lost Cause" myth and its associated iconography was deliberately manufactured around the turn of the 20th Century by persons with a vested interest in preserving a certain racial and economic status quo. It's unfortunate that too many who have accepted that myth over the last century haven't been willing to take a look behind the curtain.

Fortunately, of course, we're far beyond such self-serving mythologies today.

Douglas Southall Freeman, although an excellent writer, is the patron saint of all Lost Cause authors. He deserves much credit for being among the first serious Civil War scholars, but he essentially parroted the party line of the Southern Historical Society, of which former Confederate General Jubal Early was a prominent voice.

That Lost Cause sentimentalism did a lot of harm (my opinion here) to the objective study of the Confederate armies as a whole: Lee's Army of Northern Virginia is deified at the expense of the western armies of the Confederacy, particularly the Army of Tennessee. The holy trinity of Lee, Jackson, and Stuart being above reproach, due mainly to the fact that none of the aforementioned lived long enough to become entangled in postwar politics. Whereas James Longstreet (whom Lee respected very much) is distained mainly for having committed the unpardonable sin of becoming a Republican and became the scapegoat for the loss at Gettysburg.

Again, this is more West vs. East than North vs. South. My bias, and I admit it. The majority of influential newspapers on both sides were in the East, and so the 90 miles that lies between Washington and Richmond became the primary focus after the war. As Confederate generals go, I'll hold Patrick Ronayne Cleburne and Nathan Bedford Forrest against Thomas Jonathan Jackson and James Ewell Brown Stuart, any day of the week. Their tactical achievements in the face of geographical and logistical hurdles (as well as the indifference of their own politicians) earn the deepest respect of this dyed in the blue wool Federal.

 

[Zombie_61]

I think we've all met people who carry around an overromanticized view of some particular time period, drawn entirely from popular culture -- movies, TV shows, comics, advertising, whatever, images of finely-tailored white people in hazy smoke-filled cocktail bars exchanging meaningful glances, square-jawed GIs in crisp, creased uniforms charging the beachhead, perky housewives vacuuming in pearls, perfectly-behaved kids who always know their place, etc. That kind of distorted romanticization is the very essence of "x-abooness."

"...What a wonderful world this would be..."
Sam Cooke

 

[ChiTownScion]

Of course, Civil War re-enacting is a real thing. And we, at the Fedora Lounge should understand the desire to reconnect with the past. But, then again, there is a difference between wanting to recapture some supposedly “romantic” aura of a historical moment (southern belles, dashing confederate officers on horseback) and wanting to legitimize a cause that was lost from the start and should not draw a breath in today’s world. Dixie May have been romantic in a certain anti-establishment sense in its day. Slavery was not. (Moderators: feel free to delete if I have crossed the “no politics” line, but I would hope that this is not an issue.)

I was in "the hobby" for over 20 years. I quickly learned that there is a strong line of demarcation between those who wanted to play soldier and those who took their role as living historian seriously. I did medical reenacting: I spent nearly five years building a field apothecary and medical library while perfecting my impression as a hospital steward (a senior NCO). My rule of thumb was to spend at least three hours of research for every hour I planned on being in front of the public. (Didn't always attain that goal, but I strove for it.) All the while being told, "You should be a surgeon: you know more about this than most guys who are playing surgeon."

It took me about eight years to acquire the gear and put together an amputation instrument case that was historically accurate, but I finally made the jump. I loved doing it, but packing & unpacking for events hundreds of miles away involved a major time and cash commitment. And, pushing 60, the reality that I was portraying a regimental surgeon who actually was in his early 30's finally hit home: age is the one factor that hours of study and a serious cash investment can never correct for the sake of authenticity. So, I sold most of my uniforms and field gear to a fine North Carolina gentleman whose medical unit has a serious desire to "do it right." Unlike the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Secesh, I found that Confederate reenactors from the South boast a far greater percentage of individuals committed to authenticity.

I did take time out for the "romantic" and here's a photo as proof.

 

[Edward]

Physical-human-body accuracy is certainly an issue (moreso on the Union side than the South, if my grasp of their conscription policies was correct?). I've never quite managed to fit in some real re-enactment, though I've long hankered after the notion of Home Guard as the best fit, probably, for me (unless I was going to get into doing some earlier stuff for the Irish Revolutionary period, 1912ish-1923, though that's another one you have to be careful with viz modern day politics becoming entangled with the living history). Course, the HG had a very much wider age-range than many realise, given that so many of its members were men in reserved occupations and thus excuse from conscription (average age of Home Guard was 36 - not quite the Dad'sArmy image).

A friend has done a bit of living history as Northern Ireland WW2 Hmoe Guard, which was something else again. Whereas in Britain, the HG were linked the the military, in Northern Ireland it was an adjunct instead of the police force (Royal Ulster Constabulary, established out of the original Royal Irish Constabulary post-partition). Very different animal indeed. Again, a younger membership than assumed, though that also reflected the fact that, as in the Great War, conscription was not extended to NI (the main reason that, unlike my English chums, I didn't grow up with a whole history of "what Grandad did in the war").

 

[ChiTownScion]

It's an innate dilemma of reenacting. Those of the "right age" to accurately portray a soldier are often incapable of coming up with the necessary cash to equip themselves.

Figure that, with musket, bayonet, uniform, leathers, and other accoutrements, it'll cost you about $1,500 to equip yourself as a reasonably authentic US Civil War private, North or South. Less if you can get hold of quality used gear or obtain donations. And WWII or Rev War is even pricier. So those who can afford the price tag are often tubby middle aged guys. And they love doing it so much, year after year, that they never want to leave the dance.

You meet lifelong friends in re- enacting, and you get to watch a lot of the younger kids grow up. It's very hard to walk away. But when you're trying to present an accurate impression of "the boys' war," that day does dawn.

 

[GHT]

Funny, indeed. With only a little over 300 miles from one end of this state to the other the dialect and accent changes along the way can be significant.

I love Alabama, I remember a waiter who managed to get five syllables out of the word wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!

If you stay inside your state like northern or southern, I wouldnt call them a "tourist" like a if you live in a place like San Jose and took a day trip down to Monterey for a day at the beach, your only an hour away and your still in Northern CA.

Do you remember The Beatles song: Day Tripper? That's what we call local tourists.

 

[Edward]

It's an innate dilemma of reenacting. Those of the "right age" to accurately portray a soldier are often incapable of coming up with the necessary cash to equip themselves.

Figure that, with musket, bayonet, uniform, leathers, and other accoutrements, it'll cost you about $1,500 to equip yourself as a reasonably authentic US Civil War private, North or South. Less if you can get hold of quality used gear or obtain donations. And WWII or Rev War is even pricier. So those who can afford the price tag are often tubby middle aged guys. And they love doing it so much, year after year, that they never want to leave the dance.

You meet lifelong friends in re- enacting, and you get to watch a lot of the younger kids grow up. It's very hard to walk away. But when you're trying to present an accurate impression of "the boys' war," that day does dawn.

Indeed, and some conflicts moreso than others for sure. Maybe the trick for re-enactors to be like actors, and shift within the 'hobby' to portraying conflicts where they fit in age-wise. I'm thinknig of things like Mediaeval battles, or the pre-'45 Highland campaigns (the Jacobite risings especially). Difficulty there being even then people didn't live close to as long as we do now, despite "old men" being pressed into war by the feudal system.

The financial point is one well made. I wonder too whether the nature of the hobby itself is just something most people gravitate to later on in life, when they've had tiem to develop such an all-embracing fixation with aspecific historical period that they want to go all-in with the living history side. Funny, I once went to a costume party dressed as Sid Vicious from the My Way sequence of The Grat Rock'n'Roll SWindle. I was already thirty, and just about got away without looking far too old in it.... (Vicious was only 21 when he died).

 

[Bushman]

Not at all funny. A think a strong case could be made that there are quite a few northern cities that could be burned right now with no net loss to the country. Left to their own devices (and their own "industry"), they very likely would burn themselves given a little time.

One could argue that some already have. Booming industrial centers like Gary, Indiana, Detroit Michigan, and many of those found among the Rust Belt have indeed been literally and figuratively burned to the ground and left in choking ruination.

But then I also recognize that there's a difference between a city in economic disheaval being left to rot by its former denizens, and a wartime general waging a scorched earth campaign against perceived traitors fighting for the rights of rich people to own other people. People deride Nazis all the time, but nobody ever seems to get upset about that.

Of course, Civil War re-enacting is a real thing. And we, at the Fedora Lounge should understand the desire to reconnect with the past. But, then again, there is a difference between wanting to recapture some supposedly “romantic” aura of a historical moment (southern belles, dashing confederate officers on horseback) and wanting to legitimize a cause that was lost from the start and should not draw a breath in today’s world. Dixie May have been romantic in a certain anti-establishment sense in its day. Slavery was not. (Moderators: feel free to delete if I have crossed the “no politics” line, but I would hope that this is not an issue.)

I think it's also important to point out that a line can be drawn between simple "reenactor", somebody who enjoys history and wants to recreate some of its more action packed moments (i.e. a battle) and a romanticizer who refuses to acknowledge that the point in history they love so much was not a good time for a lot of people, and that their attitude of hand waving some of the more inconvenient truths of that time period is a disservice to the reality of that time period. The 1950s, for example, is often looked back upon with rose tinted glasses. We all love the arrival of rock and roll, Elvis, the fashion of the time, and the economic boom under Eisenhower. But when it comes to pointing out the faults, people will don full black out glasses when one wants to point out the economic wobble at the start of the decade, and the racial tensions in the late part of it.

 

[Woodtroll]

But then I also recognize that there's a difference between a city in economic disheaval being left to rot by its former denizens, and a wartime general waging a scorched earth campaign against perceived traitors fighting for the rights of rich people to own other people. People deride Nazis all the time, but nobody ever seems to get upset about that.

Indeed, and you would think that "warriors" could distinguish between war on military forces, and war on civilians. But some couldn't, or maybe they just didn't care. It bothered them not that folks not involved in the conflict starved and froze to death. After all, they were just "Succesh" and so really didn't matter. Many of the folks fighting for the Confederacy fought because their home was being invaded, and they feared the exact kind of treatment that "warriors" like Sheridan, Sherman, and Custer inflicted up and down Virginia and throughout much of the rest of the South. To say the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery is the same as to say everyone in Chicago is a gangster. After all, that's what the movies all say, right?

And then you compare the Confederacy to Nazis??? What the hell? With the kind of attitude that comment and your Sherman cartoon convey, do you really wonder why there are still hard feelings?

Go back to Miss Lizzie's comment about the flag with the raised middle finger. I don't own one and have never seen one, but perhaps this bird's for folks like you?

 

[LizzieMaine]

The 1950s, for example, is often looked back upon with rose tinted glasses. We all love the arrival of rock and roll, Elvis, the fashion of the time, and the economic boom under Eisenhower. But when it comes to pointing out the faults, people will don full black out glasses when one wants to point out the economic wobble at the start of the decade, and the racial tensions in the late part of it.

"The Fifties" of the popular imagination bears pretty much no resemblance at all to the actual, historical 1950s, which makes it difficult to even have a reasonable discussion of the period, even around here. Too many people figure the way they saw the world when they were eight years old is the way everybody else saw it. Ask a radio actress who was hounded out of the only job she knew how to do by red-baiters in 1952 what she thought of "The Fifties" and you'll get a very different reply than you would from some kid who spent that year flipping baseball cards in Mayberry.

I think that has a lot to do with the way other periods are viewed as well. A kid who was of the impressionable age during the Civil War Centennial period of the early 1960s is going to have certain romantic ideas about the 1860s that have been rooted there so long that they've forgotten where they came from.

 

[Bushman]

Indeed, and you would think that "warriors" could distinguish between war on military forces, and war on civilians. But some couldn't, or maybe they just didn't care. It bothered them not that folks not involved in the conflict starved and froze to death. After all, they were just "Succesh" and so really didn't matter. Many of the folks fighting for the Confederacy fought because their home was being invaded, and they feared the exact kind of treatment that "warriors" like Sheridan, Sherman, and Custer inflicted up and down Virginia and throughout much of the rest of the South. To say the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery is the same as to say everyone in Chicago is a gangster. After all, that's what the movies all say, right?

And then you compare the Confederacy to Nazis??? What the hell? With the kind of attitude that comment and your Sherman cartoon convey, do you really wonder why there are still hard feelings?

Go back to Miss Lizzie's comment about the flag with the raised middle finger. I don't own one and have never seen one, but perhaps this bird's for folks like you?

They never would have had their homes invaded had the Confederacy not presented Articles of Secession, every one of which explicitly outlined Lincoln's abolitionist views towards slavery as the root cause for their treason. They fired upon a US military base, started a war, and then have had the nerve to whine about being oppressed ever since. The US government pandered to the Southern States every step of the way. From the Three-Fifths Compromise to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the US government was more than fair on the subject of slavery, perhaps for far longer than they should have been. The South ensured that their states rights superseded the rights of other states, preferring their laws overwrote those in Northern States. The Southern States pushed and pushed and pushed at the definition of state's rights. Did they really believe there eventually would not be a push back?

 

[hoprah]

If you leave the country, you are already considered a tourist because I already had a case where I had to go to customs, and they already thought me a foreigner. But I always prefer to travel to different continents to find out about as many cultures as possible. And always before I travel, I schedule my time here https://yourtravelitinerary.com/ to do everything I plan. It is pretty refreshing, especially if you only go for a few days. Because if you decide to travel in a country with many traditions, in 5 days, you will not be able to enter its essence without scheduling yourself properly.

 

[belfastboy]

We live 2 hours up the I5 from Seattle and (before Covid) travelled there regularly. We always consider ourselves tourists when we cross the 49th. As well, especially during the pandemic lockdown will declare it "Tourist Day" and head downtown and play tourist in our own hometown for the day........and do our best to view the city through different eyes.