ANST - Peerage, Peerage, who's got the peerage

[Brent & Susan Rachel]

Sigh.

I feel like I am just talking in circles, anymore.

We shouldn't want awards..., overtly..., yet we spend WEEKS of e-time trying to determine
just who the active Peers ARE.  We are currently discussing being Protégés and
Apprentices.., the most OVERT statement of "I wanna be a Peer" that we can make.

We are talking about whether or not it is fair or unfair for those who already hold the
highest ranks in the Society, to be given a Patent in addition.  Whether tis nobler to
differentiate between former Landed Nobles and regular Court Baronies.  Where is the talk
of "a job well done" being sufficient reward, now?

In my opinion, nothing is inviolate, nothing immune to change.  The secret, as I have long
been taught, is to grow with the change.  With one mouth we staunchly defend a 30 year old
vision of the SCA as something that should not be tampered with, then discuss tampering
with it to keep up to date.

The structure of SCA Peerage is over 2 decades old.  That's two REAL generations, and
countless SCA ones.  The SCA is a different place, now.  New activities have become
"mainstream," and though the disappearance of one of these activities would certainly not
break the SCA, I think that the SCA is certainly a richer place for THE PRACTITIONERS of
them having been around.

I find there to be unhealthy and distressingly strident resistance to the idea that there
should be an equal place at our table for everyone.  I am proud that this is an aspect of
my Americanism coming out, because this is frankly an American-centered organization.., or
at least owes more to Western legal and romantic thought than to any medieval chivalric
code.

I have noted that resistance to even the idea of peerage for martial prowess outside of
armored combat can almost be summed up with the phrase "that's not how it was."

"Not how it was" *in period*, which I find to be a ludicrous assertion because there is no
definite "how it was" during the **millenium** we recreate..., and even if there was, the
SCA has never stopped at that before..., witness the very structure of our entire
organization.., and our peerages

"Not how it was" *when the SCA was founded*, which I find just as strange, because...,
well..., it's not THEN anymore.  The SCA now bears only the most SUPERFICIAL resemblance to
then.  "Because that's how we've always done it" has never been the rallying cry of any
organization that has THRIVED for very long..., "lasted", maybe.

I think that the fear of change is at the root of these discussions.., fear that change to
such a core element will radically alter the SCA we all love.  Frankly, that's most likely
right..., but it is denial of the fact that the VERY SCA we all love is the product of
several of those VERY changes.  And we're still here.., and still KINDA vital.

I do not intend to post on this subject anymore.  I am tired of it, as many of you
certainly must be.  I don't even intend to respond to responses to this post.

Thank you all for your patience in this discussion.., it has been..., enlightening.

Thanks to Lionardo for holding the torch with me.

Thanks to Lyonel and Galen for the tough questions..., though I still think you're wrong.
;-)

Kazimir Petrovich





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