Living History Was Re: Corpora and "period"
Deborah Sweet
dssweet at okway.okstate.edu
Fri Feb 24 08:51:19 PST 1995
Diarmuit Ui Dhuinn writes:
>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.
Well, whenever I've talked with people at demos, etc., I find it
useful to say something like: "The SCA is *like* a Living History
group." To the best of my memory I don't think I've ever said we
actually were a LH group, but it gives a good reference point that the
moderns can relate to somewhat (makes us look legitimate). I'll
sometimes continue by saying: "We're not as strict about ...." :-)
In my mind, to be a *successful* Living History group, you need the
actual, physical presence of exactly (or within a few miles) *where*
something happened. Which makes it pretty darn hard for anyone in the
U.S. to do any LH European events (like Napoleanics or medieval). But
that's just my warped opinion on LH groups.
Estrill Swet
Mooneschadoweshire
Stillwater, OK
dssweet at okway.okstate.edu
More information about the Ansteorra
mailing list