ANST - The infinite peer theory, part II

[Brent & Susan Rachel]

I  have sat and contemplated and contemplated a reply to this message.  Sir
Lyonel's witty comeback about raping quadriplegics left me with a nasty taste in
my mouth, and I toyed with not responding at all lest that graceless comment be
attributed in any way to me.  However, I feel the need to respond to some of the
more apropos comments made by Sir Lyonel.

In response to Sir Galen I stated:

> >I personally do believe that their is a social compact between the SCA (in
> >the person
> >of the Kingdoms) and the membership that the best of what we can be (NOT
> >just
> >prowess, but personal bests.., fighting the good fight.., dedication and
> >hard
> >work...) will be recognized commensurately, and universally.., they should
> >all be
> >peers of each other.  The SCA, purporting to celebrate the Middle Ages as
> >they should
> >have been should contain no second class citizens.., and it is clear from
> >the posting
> >on the other list that there are a lot of folks out there who see some
> >folks as
> >distinctly second class.

To which Sir Lyonel responded:

> I think you're confusing the SCA with the Declaration of Independence of the
> United States of America.  I know of no such compact, nor do I agree that
> our model should or can go so far as to ensure "no second class citizens."

The same unwritten social compact ensures that women fight in the SCA despite
only a modicum of mainstream evidence to support it.  It ensures that openly
alternative lifestyles are far less important than the contributions of their
participants.  It makes sure that the calligrapher and the armorer are valued
the same in relative merit based on the excellence and devotion applied to their
trades.  It ensures that race, religion, and income (all severely determining
factors in period) are not institutional encumbrances to fair play and
recognition in the SCA.  It is what has allowed the SCA to cope with growth and
the constant expansion of it's activities since that little backyard tournament
that started it all.  It is precisely what we as Americans, who founded this
game on our own egalitarian principles of hard work, fair play and self
determination, have set up as the cornerstone of virtually ALL of our LASTING
institutions.


> The very nature of our recreation *assures* second class citizens.  You
> can't create kings and queens, princes and princesses, barons and
> baronesses, knights and dames, masters and mistresses, lords and ladies, and
> a group of individuals %sans% titles and then claim to be a classless
> society.

The "classes" created by our pretend feudal rankings is just that, pretend.  If
you strike me in anger, or injure my property, of actively discriminate against
me based on my choices, the pretense of your Knighthood falls away.  It becomes
a matter of ACTUAL injury, and suddenly it's Brent and Dennis and your belt is
nothing more than a pants holder-upper, as my scarf but a hanky.

So, I suggest that by saying that any group of folks within the SCA, by the sole
determiner of the activity in which they participate (allowing that that
activity is documentably period to our organization's target timeframe), is less
worthy of having excellence recognized to the same degree as some other (no more
documentable) activity, you are creating ACTUAL 2nd class citizens within the
make-believe milieu of our SCA game.

> Besides, the creation of this proposed fourth peerage would create a
> distinctly second class peerage.

I could not agree with you more here!  I do not care for Sir Jon's proposed
"forth peerage."  You state one of the chief reasons.  However, I do salute him
for making the effort to right what he and many others have long perceived to be
a long-standing inequity in our system.  It is a welcome gesture..., a brotherly
extension of the hand, and it makes my heart lighter to see it.

> Also, in response to Galen's -
> > > To think that _every_ possible SCA activity should be able to
> > > recognized by a peerage seems to me to be a fallacy.
>
> - Kazimir says:
>
> >I really disagree.  I just think it would (should?) be so easy..,
> >conceptually, at
> >least.  Like a never before seen art or science easy insertion into the
> >Laurel.  If
> >the Chiv were for any and all combat, like the Laurel is for any and all
> >arts or
> >sciences, and the Pelican for any service.., as long as they met the
> >requisite
> >level.., then nothing would really be left out..., and we probably wouldn't
> >be having
> >this discussion.

Sir Lyonel replied:

> First, ease is not an issue.  It might be easy to do, but that's no reason
> to do it.  It would probably be "easy" to rape quadriplegics.

Ah. OK.

What I was attempting to say is this:

Service:  let's say that first there was autocratting and officers.  The Pelican
was given for excellence at such things COUPLED with the opinion that the person
was in all other ways worthy of being a peer.  Imagine the ludicrous nature of
saying that all other modes of service to the SCA (other than those 2) that have
developed in the last 20 years were patently unworthy of a Pelican.., *simply*
because they cannot be defined as either autocratting or as being an officer.
The man who brought about the existence of an activity where none was before
could never be a Pelican because what he did was neither officer nor autocrat.

But I suggest that it is "easy" to see that what he has done was service.  And
that the ever-developing nature of the SCA means that our definitions must grow,
as well.  Thus such a man has received a much deserved Pelican.

Imagine the first Laurels (for A&S).  What if the first 15 Laurels got together
way back when and said that the Arts and Sciences they we 15 do are the ONLY
arts or sciences worthy of Laurel recognition.  Suddenly, the new artisan who
can weave a tapestry for the Gods themselves bursts onto the scene.  Her skill
is mastery itself and it is all documented with kick-butt primary sources.  Yet
she is not even considered for a Laurel because of an arbitrary decision that
her skill, while period and tremendous, was not worthy of a peerage because
tapestry weaving is a middle-class skill and therefore not worthy.  This all,
despite the fact that the skills of the other Laurels ALL being, in essence,
middle-class.

I say rather that our own history has "easily" shown us the ever-expanding
nature of the Arts and Sciences within the Laurelate.  And I echo Lionardo's
assertion that this fact only makes them stronger, rather than diluted.

Now we come to combat.

The only combat recognized "for itself" (not for service or science related to
it) is SCA heavy-weapons combat.  An arbitrary line has been drawn stating that
mastery of no other weapons form (no matter the documentably of it) is worthy to
be recognized **at the same level**.  A person who is otherwise a peer, but
whose primary activity in the SCA is a martial activity other than armored
combat, may not be recognized as a peer for that mastery, even should he show
the exact same degree of mastery as a Knight/Master would with heavy weapons.

To me, therein lies the inequity.

My own personal opinions about a solution to this inequity are unknown to this
list.  I, in my original post strove merely to relay the discussions from the
4th peerage list in hopes of sparking some friendly debate on a topic that the
membership might one day be asked to render comment on.

I do want to say that I IN NO WAY advocate Knighthood for fencing.  I have NO
desire to mess with that institution.  I personally advocate the creation of an
Order of the Mastery of Defence as a third Order within the Chivalry, which we
all know is already made up of the "Order of the Knighthood" and the "Order of
the Mastery of Arms."

To me, this opens the door to Crowned heads to recognize prowess in "other than
armored" combat IF, AND ONLY IF someone deserving of a peerage in those skills
surfaces.  Crowns need not rush out and start making them just because they can
(a bad idea with any honor).  Hell, if the activity doesn't even exist in your
Kingdom (as fencing does not yet in Calontir) , then you need not even worry
about it.  I do NOT, however, believe that an activity has to be absolutely
universal to be the subject of a universal peerage.  The East Kingdom has a
Maritime Guild with some recognition attached for its members.  I would not
expect a landlocked Kingdom to ever have such, but I certainly wouldn't stand in
the way of a person getting a Laurel for expertise and knowledge of period
navigation and maritime skills in the East JUST BECAUSE it is a science NOT
being engaged in in Calontir.

So, if my pipe dream should ever come to pass and the Chivalry were expanded, I
would be forced to answer Sir Lyonel's question:

> Second, as to the idea of opening the Chivalry to other combat forms, do you
> want *me* voting in your White Scarf circles?  I don't know anything about
> what you do, nor do I have any real interest in it at this time.

As a Knight, you are supposed to be a peer who has distinguished himself with a
certain group of weapons in a certain type of combat.  I would certainly think
that qualifies you to tell me if you think the candidate is a Peer or not.  And,
for all that you may not be knowledgeable of the weapons of HIS choice, you
could most likely pass some judgment (at least taking the word of your brothers
and sisters more knowledgeable) of the candidate's prowess and devotion to his
martial art.

As Lionardo noted, the Laurels don't seem to stick on this subject.  Prowess at
armor-making may make it very difficult to vote on a spinner/weaver, but the
signs of prowess and research ore still there to see, as are the more general
peerage characteristics.


> Third, yes, something would still be left out.  The Laurel doesn't generally
> recognize excellence in creating battle simulation materials.

This is a red herring.  The rattan weapons we use are, as you cite, but
simulations used for safety's sake  We DO recognize those who make "the real
things," those real swords and armor we are supposed to see by suspending our
disbelief.

> Nor have we a peerage for outstanding persona play, even where
> that persona play involves extensive research.

Persona Play (as applied to the SCA) is NOT a documentable medieval or
renaissance art or science, thus, OF COURSE we don't have a peerage for it.

Fighting with Rapiers, tilting at the quintain, and excellence at archery ARE
documentable medieval and renaissance activities, YET they do not have a peerage
possibility for PROWESS in them.

Good examples.


> Finally, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if the order of the
> Pelican had not been created.  That event created the illusion of universal
> recognition.
>
> But it *is* an illusion.

It is nebulous, I agree, but I choose to see it as the heart of my elusive
social compact.

Someone saw an inequity..., a need to recognize achievement.., and they acted on
it..., and the SCA didn't fall apart as a result.

No change can ever take place without change having taken place.  You can't grow
without change.  You can't make a cake without breaking a few eggs.

Baron Kazimir Petrovich Pomeshanov

PS - none of this is about WANTING a peerage or the selfless denial of that
urge.  It is about seeing something you think needs changing, and working to
change it.  No one expects everyone to agree.



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