Myths encountered in 17th and 18th century reenacting:

"Green (or black, or pink, etc.) isn't period." Well, depends on what shade of green etc. you're talking about. Here's an excellent article on medieval dyes; the same technology would have been inherited, and improved on, by the 17th and 18th centuries. For more on 18th c. dyes, read

Liles, J.N.. The Art and Craft of Natural Dyeing: Traditional Recipes for Modern Use. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Press, 1990.

"Vegetable dyes fade faster than modern dyes." Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the period clothing you've seen in museums are a couple hundred years old by now; of course they're probably faded from wear or exposure to light. Didn't that black (or red, or blue) chemically-dyed t-shirt you bought several years ago fade, too?

Some chemical dyes are more fade-resistant than other chemical dyes; and some vegetable dyes are more lightfast than other vegetable dyes. For instance, the blue from indigo (the active chemical, indigotin, is still used to dye denim) resists fading when exposed to light, whereas the blue from logwood is notorious for fading quickly. Moreover, redyeing old clothing to give it a new look was a common practice.

"Everything back then was handmade and therefore primitive." A visit to Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Williamsburg, or any antiques show with fine 18th century cabinetry made in Philadelphia, Boston or other centers of population ought to dispell the "handmade = primitive" idea. Craftsmen studied for years to master their crafts; even a cursory glance at objects made from the middle ages through the late Renaissance would dispell this myth. I've seen so-called craftsmen selling ironwork, woodwork, and other items at period crafts festivals that an apprentice would have been ashamed to acknowledge.

Nontheless, there is a grain of truth to the argument -- some objects were made at home because an item was either too expensive or unavailable. During certain periods of American colonial history, craftsmen were prohibited from manufacturing and selling specific objects because England wanted the colonies to provide England with raw materials and serve as a market for England's manufactured goods (often at a higher price, due to the cost of transporting items that the colonists might otherwise have been able to make for themselves more cheaply). Many colonists also thought that they were not receiving full value for their raw materials; many also wound up deeply in debt to English creditors from whom they had to purchase necessary objects. This system was one of the contributing factors of the American Revolution.

Articles on the Mercantilist system at econlib.org and mariner.org

"People living on the frontier adapted Indian clothing and habits." Yes and no -- some did, some didn't. The inventories of Oliver Miller, a colonial storekeeper living on the frontier in western Pennsylvania, show luxury items like silk, printed fabric, and china, along with utilitarian objects like checked linen and woolens.

"Poor people couldn't afford any nice stuff, not even a silk handkerchief." Well, it all depends. Plenty of the runaway indentured servants listed in the PA Gazette were wearing silk handkerchiefs. Pack traders carried silk ribbons and other little trinkets in their packs. Moreover, there was a vibrant trade in used clothing in the 17th and 18th centuries. Could a woman of modest means have afforded a new silk gown? No. Could she have a silk ribbon for her neck? Maybe.

"All campfollowers were women of ill repute." Actually, many of them served as laundresses, nurses and other positions where they were paid a modest wage to support themselves. Women of ill repute were drummed out of the camp when their presence was discovered. A couple of good references on campfollowers include "Belonging to the Army" by Holly Mayers, "The Multitude of Women..." and "The proportion of Women which ought to be allowed..." by John U. Rees.

"Tatting is period."  No, it's not period for the 18th century, despite claims by a few badly researched books on tatting. Here's an article on the history of tatting.

"Crochet is period."  Unfortunately, no, not for the 18th century, though if you're a 19th century reenactor you might be able to use it (depending on which decade you do).  Here's an article from a crocheting site on the history of crochet.