ANST - awards & peasants & peers, oh my

[Jan Downs]

I am a new fighter  and new to the SCA and I aspire to knighthood. I see the
SCA as a place where I can actively develop my ideals of chivalry and
ultimately achieve recognition for the work I have done and contributions I
have made. I want to be honorable, generous, courteous and skilled at arms.
I wish to bring honor upon the Household that has adopted me and the knight
who has (tentatively) agreed to train me. And I don't want to be a bloody
peasant. I don't want to be a serf. If I want to be a regular guy there are
plenty of places in the mundane world for me get that need met. The whole
point of the SCA is to not be in the mundane world 24/7. As I understand it
the SCA is recreating the Middle Ages as it should have been, not as it was.
Which is why we take showers after fighter practice and avoid the plague
like the plague. And whenever you get a bunch of people together and they
get organized, politics and other bad behavior is pretty much inevitable. It
is just human nature.
Truthfully we can only be so accurate in our recreation. We have modern
textiles, modern metals and 1000 years(give or take) of history between us
and the period we emulate. The post-modern mind cannot wrap itself around
medieval belief any more than the medieval mind could wrap itself around a
post modern concept like atheism. Yet I believe we should still strive to be
as accurate as possible. That's part of the fun.
And I must say that as a woman fighting mostly men who are mostly way bigger
than i am I have not been condescended to or treated with anything less than
respect. All the fighters in my barony have been most generous with their
tutelage and have allowed me space in their ranks. This includes the peers
and other "brass hats".
I am sorry that your experiences have not been pleasant. I honor your choice
not to aspire but please don't urinate upon my porridge because I do. Oh and
once I achieve knighthood I'd like to dare someone to take it away from me.
;>

Martel
Barony of Bryn Gwlad
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Schumacher <jschumac at jcpenney.com>
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: ANST - awards & peasants & peers, oh my


>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 10:41:03 PDT
>> =46rom: "Laury Torrence" <J-LTorrence at worldnet.att.net>
>> Subject: Re: ANST - awards & peasants & peers, oh my
>>
>> Aquilanne wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Also, if you have no aspirations to any awards or peerages, why the
>> > passionate opinions? Seems a little ungenerous to want others to
>> > not have things you supposedly don't care about.
>> > I guess I'm with Cory, too. I wonder who you are and what your SCA
>> > background is. Why do you play? Sounds to me like you've had some
>> > negative experiences, either with people of rank in the SCA or else
>> > perhaps with frustrated personal attempts at recognition either in
>> > the SCA or mundanely.
>> > Your post has a very "sour grapes" sound to it.
>>
>> I suppose I'm with you and Cory on this too!  This sounds like
>> someone who either didn't get something they thought they deserved,
>> or has had a bad experience in the past.  Or the alternate
>> possibility, all his *reasons* are a load of fabrications.  The "I
>> think in the hypothetical" statement probably says a lot already.
>> Sometimes we need to check to see what color the sky is in their happy
>> little universe!    Even more interesting is the fact that we have
>> heard nary a peep from him since his initial posting, in spite of
>> Cory's repeated request for information.
>>
>> Baroness Caterina
>
>
>It seems some would love to stereotype me into some category so I can
>be dealt with or dismissed accordingly as they see fit.  That is why
>I'm somewhat reluctant to answer personal questions as well as not
>identify those who formed my attitudes or turn-offs.  It would seem
>(which is part of the point) that some need to know "who" I am, rather
>than considering what has been said.  The post was signed with both
>my name and my SCA name.
>
>I also do not get every message, just a bundled lump of several e-mails
>which arrive after a considerable delay.  I also did not have the chance
>to go through the 1000+ lines of the bundles until now.  Genevieve de
>Courtanvaux's message arrived much earlier than the Ansteorra
>installment and was replied to.
>
>To answer some questions...  I have never tried to seek any position
>in the SCA.  Thus I have never been rejected for anything and have no
>axes to grind due to something of that nature.
>
>What I have seen in my life is a growing distaste for the SCA.  When I
>began, it all seemed so innocent and polite on the surface.  As I've
>gotten to know more of the people who "run the show" and who tend to
>have more of these awards, titles, etc. I see how much less than ideal
>things really are.  The politics turn me off.  I see favoritisms, I see
>ass-kissing, I see secret hatreds, talking about people behind their
>backs, I see attempts to prevent other people from doing things, I see
>the little cliques form.  I've heard bad things from those close to
>me about people I respect, which (sorry to say) always leaves questions
>about that person in my mind.  I'd rather not have heard the negative.
>I see more of the "inside" trash.  And sorry, but leaving the company
>of these people is not so easy for reasons I won't address publicly.
>
>This is a far cry from when everything was new and everybody I knew
>seemed to just enjoy playing.  Yes, to an extent, I focus on those at
>the top because the closer I get to some of those the stronger the
>politics are and the more disgusting it gets.  Just look at some of
>the remarks about me from a baronness for the mere suggestion that
>ranks should be minimized.  Perhaps I'm just a victim of hearing from
>people guilty of the things some accuse me of.  I'm getting fed up
>with it.
>
>It seems those that don't aspire and just play the game are the most
>free from this problems.  I don't hear their opinions of everyone else
>or perhaps their jealousies of those people.  I don't hear how crappy
>so-and-so's work is, or about how much so-and-so thinks of themself, or
>why so-and-so didn't deserve that or why so-and-so should have gotten
>it instead.
>
>Many who do aspire, to me, seem to be of the sort that crave power.
>The SCA is a place for exploring fantasies of nobility.  Once they get
>there, they get this air about themselves.  Of all the "brass-hats"
>I've met, I've not known many without some sort of air of superiority.
>I know this is not always the case, but to me it's more often than
>not.  How many "brass-hats" go from camp to camp, meeting people without
>some dignified act or entourage?  How many brass hats shout to passers
>by to "come join us"?  "Here, sit here in my chair, I can stand".
>"Want something to eat?"  "Who are you, where are you from?"
>
>This past weekend I went to such a wonderful event.  It was started by
>an SCA household but was/is officially "not-ready-for-SCA".  It is my
>favorite event.  There are various things to praise about this event,
>but one subtle thing you realize really contributes to it, is the fact
>that there are no titles, no stuffy protocol to remember.  All the SCA
>folks put their SCA personas behind them and everyone is equal.  There
>were past contest winners, but past accomplishments were only held in
>the minds of those who were at past events.  I found myself thinking
>how much I love this then thinking of the SCA, thinking things used to
>be kind of like this for me, before I saw the politics and the cliques,
>wishing the SCA were more this way.
>
>*******
>
>And at the risk of repeating myself, some of this seems a double-
>standard.  We claim to be historical and we chastise modernism when
>it suits us, yet look the other way in other cases.
>
>This entire society is very modern.  I don't really know why people
>argue the "historically accurate" viewpoint.  It seems only used when
>to win arguments or put people down, not to make the society more
>realistic.
>
>The point that struck me most about this past weekend was the autocrat
>talking about meeting a member of that original May Day party from
>which the Society sprang.  He asked him what he thought about what
>the SCA has become and he said "we take it way too seriously.  It was
>just a party".  Reminds me of the SNL skit where Shatner addresses
>Trekkies "It was just a TV show, get a life".
>
>I'd like to see many things taken less seriously.  (Me about to make
>some wild crazy suggestions cover your eyes if you're going to take
>me too seriously)  If we're not accurate anyway, why not make everyone
>knights if they so desire? Why not let everyone pick their title and
>personna and act it out? To me, it would make things a lot more fun.
>Not because I could pick a title, but titles would mean nothing.
>People wouldn't decide they were better than another.
>
>*******
>
>As far as knight-hood issues are concerned...
>
>First off, my term-limits on knights was primarly a suggestion to bring
>the brass-hat to regular guy ratio more in line.  My thoughts are not
>exclusive to the knighthood, but I can't really think of anything as
>glaringly ironic as a knight who can't fight.
>
>Alternatives could be to have a setup more like champions which exist
>for various events or contests, like Warlord or Guardian or the Tor, or
>Queens Champion.  Something where you hold this or that title, then
>somebody comes along after some period and the title is passed on to
>the next person.  Likewise for artistic endeavors.
>
>My point of view was obviously a bit different than the officially
>defined requirements "to be knighted", as Timo pointed out.  But my
>view of a knight is that of an elite fighter who should be able to
>fight, not just at one time in their life.  My opinion (which is, by
>the way all we're talking about) would be that this requirement be
>on-going or else we might as well grant "honorary knighthoods" as was
>the case with, say, Paul McCartney or Elton John.  So, in the last
>note, the enthusiastic old guy who joined the Society too late, and
>who may have "learned his stuff", but just couldn't "do his stuff"
>could still become a knight and at least equal to the old knight.
>
>Are terms or requalifications really that far-fetched?  You have to take
>an eye exam every few years to renew your driver's license.  Mario
>Andretti doesn't automatically get to race in the Indy 500 every year.
>He has to qualify like all the rest.  Inman doesn't stay king forever
>and doesn't just get to come up and say he wants to be king next.  He
>has to re-earn it (no matter how easy he makes it look).  To kind of
>answer the question about would I dare question Inman's right to be
>a knight.  I wouldn't expect him to fail a test, would you?
>
>-Karl von Augsburg
> Ansteorra
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Joel Schumacher                        JCPenney Co. - UNIX Network Systems
>jschumac at uns-dv1.jcpenney.com          12700 Park Central Pl
>(972) 591-7543                         Dallas TX  75251
>===========================================================================
=
>Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
>

============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.