Living History

[R. Michael Litchfield]

> Regarding the term "Living History" (as in the General Introduction where we
> are regarded as part of the "LH movement"), I *strongly* question its
> appropriateness for use in the SCA (as the organization currently exists), for
> without the STRICT enforcement of authenticity *required* by the more generally
> accepted LH groups, such as Williamsburg, and so forth, to describe us as such
> is as great a pretention I have seen in my association with the Society.  I am
> not advocating an active alteration in the functioning of the Society, but I
> *really* wish people wouldn't use the term when describing us to the Media,
> since it's just not true.

I disagree. I view "living history" as more a matter of immersement. Where
the participants look at ALL aspects of life, especially the inconsequintial
details. Focusing on such "minor" aspects as the number of tines on a fork,
when certain spices were used and where, what a typical diet was like in a
given place and time (can you tell it is almost lunchtime?) These details
do not come to awareness unless one "lives" the history one is examining.

> Ipse mera Eruditissimus,	Diarmuit Ui Dhuinn

-Mcihael