Peerage Recognition (was RE: ANST - Lists of Peers, the next gene ration, or deep south 35, or voyageur...)

[Paul Mitchell]

Galen here, replying to Lionardo ...

Little to disagree with here, really, but I did find
something to focus on:

Lionardo wrote:
<snip>

> Yes, rattan combat
>is an integral part of our culture, but I'd have to disagree that it is THE
>integral part of the stated purpose of the SCA. Maybe I'm just too
>altruistic.

The "stated purpose of the SCA" is a flawed attempt to describe
what we do for tax purposes.  Sure it plays down the combat and
emphasizes school demos.  I don't consider myself or the SCA to
be bound by this description.

Altruistic to whom, by the way?

>> So, just what makes peerage important, anyway?
>
<snip>
>Perhaps such recognition means little to one who is already a Peer, 

I assure you it does not "mean little" to me.

>but I
>have noticed that twinkle in the eyes of others who would hope to aspire to
>such a lofty goal, 

Perhaps it inspires such hope and aspiration because it _is_
a lofty goal.  I tend to think all the peerages would be demeaned
when the SCA starts making peers for excellence as a scout.  I
just don't think that _finding_ the opposing troops  is an 
equivalent skill to those skills developed in becoming worthy
of a laurel, or the 18 years of service I put in to earn my
pelican, or even the expertise, discipline and courage required 
to be an outstanding chivalric combatant.  I can't get past the
idea that this "4th Peerage/Misc-Sorta-Combat-Related Peerage"
proposal is about people who, having chosen not to undertake
the kinds of challenges that Peerage requires, wish to have
their work declared to be of equivalent value anyway.

>and the disappointment in the eyes of those who could
>never achieve that goal in their chosen method of enhancing the SCA because
>their field of endeavor is not recognized 

Now, if what someone wants in life is to be a peer in the
SCA, far be it from me to criticize.  But if someone wants
to be a peer, why would he take up a pursuit for which there
exists no peerage?  

>because we have so pigeon-holed
>what things are supposedly productive to the SCA. 

"Supposedly productive"?  Is that really what you want to say?
I think the effort and expertise that go into putting on a good 
SCA event (such as ATYC, just for an example that springs quickly 
to mind) is a bit more than "supposedly productive" to the SCA.  
I think that research and re-creation of period-style items done 
by the average laurel is more than "supposedly" productive.  And 
I think that the chivalric qualities that I and my brother knights 
display on the field and off are the _basis_ of the SCA's values.  
I'm not talking about the "stated purpose" in the By-Laws and the 
Articles of Incorporation, but about the real SCA down here in the 
kingdoms and local branches.

>But that is just MY
>opinion of how the SCA should recognize it's members, to encourage those who
>do further the goals of the organization in whatever way they do so. 

Without service, no one holds office, or puts together
events.  Without arts, no one has a custume or armor
or entertainment.  And without tournament combat, it's
just not the SCA.  These are the things that are universal
and essential to the SCA, everywhere.  Take away any of
these, and you don't have the SCA anymore.  All of the
things mentioned in the "4th Peerage" proposal are fun
and worthwhile, but we still have the SCA if those things
don't exist.  I submit that peerage is to recognize excellence
in the _essential_ activities of the SCA.

Reasonable people may disagree.

- Galen of Bristol

_____________________________________________________
John 20:21-23

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