What *Could* You Do Without?

[Viola]

They do indeed, fortworthgal! I buy a bottle every two years or so. I'm too wussy to actually dye my hair, so I pour lemon potions on it instead. There must be others out there who do the same. lol

 

[fortworthgal]

Okay, the evidence is real and the verdict is in: army guts are authentic guts.

.

Boy this one really bugs you, no? lol

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Actually, it guts me.

But seriously, I'm always glad to learn something new. I'd rather know that guts wore khaki than erroneously believe otherwise.

.

 

[Wild Root]

You know, there were stout men in the Army but, other branches of the service such as the Marries and Navy were very slender… The Brass upstairs tended to be a little on the thick side… there were older men but, those guys were few and were Officers or in office type of positions… The guys doing the real work were all younger men who were very trim… I’ve seen a few photos of some guys that were on the tubby side, guys who served in the Navy but, those guys were very far and few between.

I’ve seen a lot of the guys that re-enact WWII… lots of them are middle aged and on the heavy side… they’re in uniforms that are meant for the young fighting men… inaccurate. If they were dressed as an officer or general who would be sitting at the White House smoking stogies and sipping brandy with FDR, they would have nothing to do at a battle! Guys of most ages do WWII re-enacting because they love history and they just want to play… they try be authentic down to the smallest details but, some of their age and sizes are the only inaccuracies.

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

That's my point. If some guy really wants to be authentic, he shouldn't just focus on the uniforms: he should get himself into a gym and on a diet. Vigorous exercise: now that would be authentic.

.

 

[Wild Root]

Yes it would!

=WR=

 

[Viola]

That's my point. If some guy really wants to be authentic, he shouldn't just focus on the uniforms: he should get himself into a gym and on a diet. Vigorous exercise: now that would be authentic.

.

So would being unhealthfully lean and being considerably shorter as well, but few men are willing to chop off their ankles.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Change what you can change. Height ain't it.

Reenact the role of a serviceman or woman who was not unhealthfully lean. Be the one who was healthier than the norm.

.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I need to find a Rear Admiral's uniform then. I certainly have the "rear" for it. lol

 

[fortworthgal]

Not necessarily true about the Army vs. other branches. Marines, generally yes - but I've got quite a few shots of Navy guys who weren't exactly tiny.

I think you can be an accurate reenactor at any size and any age - you just have to choose your impression wisely. I'm not going to give a modern guy with a minor beer gut heck because he chooses a rear area non-combatant impression. As I said before, this has been discussed over and over and over again by reenactors and others, and nothing good ever comes of it. It is a topic best left alone, honestly.

But back to the topic at hand - I could really do without people who use the internet to somehow make themselves seem smarter, wittier, more special, more wealthy, etc., than they really are. No, this is not directed at anyone on this forum, but a particular acquaintance of mine who has recently decided to add decidedly inaccurate details about her life (and her supposed skills and talents) into her blog.

 

[Wild Root]

yes, there were a lot of shorter men back in those days but, there were taller men too... I know because I have original goods in my size! I've seen photos of taller men, James Stewart was one and I know Band Leader Glenn Miller was about 6'.

Guys back then weren't un-healthfully lean, they just worked like dogs and fat was burned faster then they could put it on... yes, there were cases in most theaters of war that food was scarce and the men were fighting to stay a live but, being thin isn't as dangerous as being too big.

 

[Viola]

I can bask in the knowledge that my shortness is period. Nothing says Depression era like 5'1". In your faces, giants who put things on high shelves!

There certainly were underweight men. See the classic "98-lb. weakling" and men who had to go on bulk diets to get into the military at the start of the war.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I could really do without people who use the internet to somehow make themselves seem smarter, wittier, more special, more wealthy, etc., than they really are.

True enough. About the reenactors and about the online puffery.

It's hard to pretend at wittiness if you're not in fact witty. I've found that online wits tend to be even more so in person. You should meet some of us clowns sometime.

As for the other stuff, well, that can be puffed up to the stratosphere. I don't believe anything I read online, especially if I've written it. (Just kidding!)


.

 

[fortworthgal]

Ah yes! For once being short isn't a liability. And I thank my lucky stars every day that women of the 1930s and 40s seemed to all wear a size 6 shoe. More deadstock for me! lol

On the weight issue, in a couple of my books about the WASP program, it is noted that several of the WASP had to be put on diets thanks to the high-carb, high-calorie diets being served at the training fields.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Guys back then weren't un-healthfully lean, they just worked like dogs and fat was burned faster then they could put it on.

True. There was a time when being lean meant having a poor (or at least meager) diet and doing hard physical labor. Sugary foods were luxuries, not staples. A Coke was a treat. Heck, chicken (fried, baked, or whatever) was a treat. The poor ate bread, starchy food and a very small variety of vegetables. And when they ate, the portions weren't large. Burgers, for instance, were smaller than the versions served at retro-diners today.

Nowadays, being poor typically means being fat as well. Cheap foods are processed; they bloat you up. That, and the death of most forms of hard physical labor (unless you're here from south of the border) add up to guts and muffin tops.

.

 

[fortworthgal]

Nowadays, being poor typically means being fat as well. Cheap foods are processed; they bloat you up. That, and the death of most forms of hard physical labor (unless you're here from south of the border) add up to guts and muffin tops.

.

You know, I do agree with you, but I also have to disagree. I believe it is poor *choices* rather than just an economic issue. A head of lettuce and a bag of apples cost less than a bag of Cheetos. A bag of dried beans and a few tomatoes cost less than a package of fried chicken tenders. Eating healthy is quite inexpensive compared to high-fat "convenience" foods. Economics combined with laziness (easier to open a bag of cheetos than it is to make a salad), if you will.

 

[mysterygal]

I tend to lean more on the side of the laziness idea...food these days are too convenient..which brings the downfall of high fat, sodium and tons of preservatives, which , is just not good for us. Eating healthy is not hard at all and as far as the grocery bill is concerened, there is not that big of a difference. I feel sorry for all those kids brought up on hamburger helper and frozen pizza...nothing is like a meal made from scratch!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I read in an investigative book titled Nickeled and Dimed that the very poor are more likely to have stoves (or at least hotplates) than refrigerators, which can be too expensive for them. (The electricity cost is high, too.) This makes it difficult for fresh food to survive more than a day in their homes, especially in the summer. And due to transportation difficulties, the very poor often find it very difficult to get to the market every day to buy fresh fruits and vegetables.

.

 

[Caledonia]

You know, I do agree with you, but I also have to disagree. I believe it is poor *choices* rather than just an economic issue. A head of lettuce and a bag of apples cost less than a bag of Cheetos. A bag of dried beans and a few tomatoes cost less than a package of fried chicken tenders. Eating healthy is quite inexpensive compared to high-fat "convenience" foods. Economics combined with laziness (easier to open a bag of cheetos than it is to make a salad), if you will.

Absolutely. And the same applies in the UK. Often poor "choices" are the result of lack of education, and that starts with the parents at home. I understand that it's easy to judge "choice" when you've got enough money not to wonder about whether to buy the apples or not, and to give yourself a varied diet with "treats", but a lot of the eating habits people have are so ingrained through their upbringing, education, and bombardment by the media, that it's difficult for them to see through that to the cheap and healthy alternatives. It's a difficult one to resolve and began back in the 50s when we started feeding children sweets non-stop as a reaction to the restrictions of the rationing period.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Read my post above yours, Caledonia.