How Accurate Should We Be When Presenting History?

I have a question for you - - -
How accurately should history be presented?
Should every nuance and minute detail be 100% correct?
(Well, we will never be able to get it 100% correct, but you know what I mean here).
And is there a difference in a historical living history/reenactment presentation compared to a movie or TV series?
I ask this because a while back The History Channel showed "The Sons of Liberty," a mini-series about that secret society of men of which was formed to protect the rights of the colonists back in the 1760s.
The idea behind it is pretty cool, but unfortunately the channel no longer has the best history track record of late. Remember - this is the station, after all, that gave us one of the worst pieces of historical crap about our country called "The Story of US," and continues their aliens and ice-truckers-type shows instead of real history.
And with the 240th anniversary of the founding of our country upon us, the History Channel gave us "Sons of Liberty," more totally revisionist garbage instead of presenting this as the important piece of history that it is.
So let's go back to my original question:
How accurate should history be presented?
You see, as I watched a couple of episodes of the "Sons of Liberty," I found major historical inaccuracy after major historical inaccuracy, but there were others faux pas - some of what may be minor to most people but, for me, stood out like a sore thumb; for instance, setting atop a table where our colonial founding fathers & brethren were sitting around was an oil lamp - an oil lamp that was clearly at least 70 or 80 years ahead of its time.

Here is a still from The History Channel's "Sons of Liberty" mini-series. Note the out-of-time oil lamp.

Betty Lamp from the 18th century

Now I'm not saying that oil lamps were not used in the 18th century - they certainly were (with the most common referred to as betty lamps at the time), but they were not even close to looking like the one in the photo. It was the "futuristic" mid-to-late 19th century style of the oil lamp that got my attention. I mean, couldn't they at least do a little research here? I consider that to be akin to watching a movie about the 1920s and seeing one of those 1950s/60s floor to ceiling tension lamps with the three or four lampshades pointing in different directions standing in a living room corner.
Again, to me that would stand out like a sore thumb.
I saw this same type of anomaly in the American Girl Doll movie "Molly" that my daughter owns. There's a scene where Molly and her aunt are talking while at a soda shop and next to them is a table-top jukebox...from 1957 (the movie takes place during WWII).
Small, yes, but noticeable. At least by me.
So...am I being too picky here? I suppose in the great scheme of things, the oil lamp used in "Liberty" (or even the jukebox in "Molly") may be, as I said, pretty minor...even petty to most.
However, I can't help but be slightly disappointed and even a little annoyed at these aberrations.

This photo of an above stairs bed chamber in the Woodhull saltbox house from AMC's "Turn: Washington Spies" shows the time someone took to present historical accuracy.
And this picture below, also from "Turn," has us inside a more rural-style cabin:

Just look at the detail!
They did an amazing job on the props here!
Now, though the storyline in Turn wasn't necessarily historically accurate, the story itself was played out well, and as a whole it much much better quality in every aspect in comparison to Sons of Liberty.
(Pictures courtesy of Marlene DiVia)

This, of course, brings me to reenacting, where there can often be deviations from absolute accuracy laying about.
First off, in the Civil War reenacting group I am in, we're usually in tents - hardly period correct for most civilians. But, unless we have historic home reenacting opportunities, there's not much we can do about the tents, though at least most of us make the attempt to show visitors our period lives in a truthful historical manner by using and utilizing the correct accessories of the time period represented (at least in my camp), including oil lamps.
Now, the Sixberry House, from the 1850s, is where some of the most intense immersion we've ever done has taken place. This historic home inside the small open-air museum of Charlton Park in Hastings, Michigan is filled with antique furniture, some of which are more suited to the 1870s through 1900 rather than the 1860s, and yet we are able to transport ourselves back to the time of the American Civil War very realistically.

Living history at the Sixberry House. It sure looks 1860s to me!

Our clothing and mannerisms can make quite a difference in our presentation here, as well as the fact that the furnishings are at least near the time we try to represent.
At Historic Fort Wayne we also use the commandant's house built in the 1870s as our Civil War era home. As with the Sixberry house, it is furnished with later 19th century furniture - items not around during the 1860s, but, again, we make it work rather well during our reenactments for the same reasons as cited above.
Should we stop using these homes because of the discrepancies?

Colonial America: as close to perfect as one can be - -
I think we're pretty darn close, especially with an actual 
18th century house as a backdrop!

Hmmm...let's look at another angle...
How about cost? My wife was given (given!)  a spinning wheel a number of years back, and since then she has become the 21st Michigan spinning queen and has even begun to dye her homespun yarn different colors by way of traditional methods. And her presentation, including hand-carding wool, is very popular amongst visitors, especially children.
Though the process is exactly the same as spinning on an original from 150 years ago, her spinning wheel is not period correct - it was made in the 1970s, nearly a hundred years after spinning on a wheel became old-fashioned - but it does look very much like a traditional wheel.

My wife spinning at her wheel. Most do not know it's not 100% period correct, but it can pass fairly well, and the process of spinning wool into yarn is exactly the same.

We cannot afford to purchase a period-authentic original or replica spinning wheel. So...should she stop doing her spinning presentation because of this?

As easily as melted butter.
And no modernisms were used in the process!

Now there are small things we can do to present historically accurate. For example, in the fall I make beeswax candles using, for the first time, tin candle molds. I really want to do the entire process the way it was done in the 19th century, so instead of doing the method that most folks use today - using the spray or gel in the tubing of the molds so the hardened wax can easily slip out - I, instead, dip the mold of hardened wax into a pot of boiling water for a few seconds. The candles slide out of the mold as easy as melting butter!

The old process works beautifully, and I am very pleased to see that by following the directions in "Farmer Boy" we, too, could keep the 19th century way of this craft alive.
Now, as a colonial/RevWar reenactor, this can also be translated to that time period as well with some adjusting of accessories.
I do have another question - - and this is a biggie:
what do you think of women doing jobs that traditionally belong to men?
Now, before you attack me for being sexist or whatever, understand...yes, I know that some women did do what was considered 'men's work' (and we know there were women posing as male soldiers during the Civil War). but this was pretty rare. There have been lists of workers in shops with no women's names upon it. We can say, "well, some women dressed as men," and this is true. But was it true in a town setting where everyone knew everyone else?
I have also read that in colonial times women worked with men and were more accepted than in Victorian times...
Any thoughts?

Whew! I really went off on a tangent here, didn't I?

But it was all to make a point: How far should one go to accurately present history?

Well, I suppose there can be two answers here - - - - - 

I like to think that I can pass
as a colonial farmer.

First it must be remembered that as reenactors/living historians, though we may never be 100% correct, we should always strive to be. I like to think that if I were suddenly zapped back in time, say...to the 1770s or even the 1860s, that I might blend in without a problem. That is...until I open my mouth. Yeah, our modern speech would be a dead give-a-way that we were not like them.
But since we are portraying history through presentation and action to the visiting public, I believe we must really make an all-out effort to be as accurate and authentic as we possibly can. It's a continuous research and learning experience, for none of us our perfect, no matter what.
Oh! And reenactors need to stop making things up (or have the attitude "if they'da had it, they'da used it") if they don't have an answer.
Very simple.
Also given the fact that so many of the accessories we use are not so blatantly out of time (as is the oil lamp in the "Sons of Liberty" movie), we can be very passable...and continue to head in the right direction.
I mean, there has to be some exceptions to an extent, especially for newer reenactors. But as long as the living historian continues to make improvements through research and not become lazy, that's the important thing.  We must be open to new research.

I also feel if a movie company plans to make a major motion picture/mini-series such as "The Sons of Liberty" where finances for researching and purchasing smaller details are not quite as tight as a home reenacting budget (The History Channel is owned by Disney-Hearst - big bucks!), I would expect much more.  Funny, though, because reenactors are almost always more spot on than movies.
We should always strive for authenticity and accuracy as best as we can.
This is not me being an elitist.  This is what reenactors should always strive for - continuous improvements.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts...what are yours?
By the way, click HERE to read an EXCELLENT posting about the truth behind the History Channel's "Sons of Liberty."

Until next time, see you in time.

~   ~   ~