ANST - Lists of Peers, the next generation, or deep south 35, or voyageur...

[Paul Mitchell]

Galen replies to Lionardo:

>Sir Galen wrote (after I snipped his reasoning to Boyarin Kazimir's relating
>suggestions on the topic of recognition for those with "peer qualities" in
>areas not, apparently, recognized otherwise):
>> To think that _every_ possible SCA activity should be able to
>> recognized by a peerage seems to me to be a fallacy.  
>
>Why? Is there a specific reason that only if you fight with rattan in
>tournaments you should be allowed to be a peer? Or only if you participate
>in what is currently being considered the "Arts & Sciences" by the current
>Laurelate? Or only if you provide the kinds of service currently being
>recognized by the Order of the Pelican? 

Specific reason?  Well, what I said, as you quoted above, is
very clearly labelled as opinion (that phrase "seems to me"
should be a dead giveaway).

I would think that one of the most important things we learn
about the SCA is that the answer to "why is something done?" 
is usually found by asking "how did something come to pass?"

The SCA did not set out to create a "peerage path" for every
activity.  The peerages we have are the results of the interests
of the people who founded the SCA.  It is certainly legitimate
for succeeding generations of members to ask whether the system
should be changed.  My opinion is that the system should not
be dramatically changed.  But we started with a tournament, and
therefore knights.  From the first we had people practicing a
variety of arts and sciences, and so by the time the SCA was
formalized into an organization, and the chivalry formalized,
it was agreed that excellence in the arts should be recognize
as equivalent to knighthood.  So at 12th Night in AS II, the
Chivalry was formalized into the Orders of Knighthood and 
Mastery of Arms, and the Order of the Laurel was created.
In AS IX, the Board created the Order of the Pelican to seperate
out service, and quite a few laurels who were mainly made for
service traded their laurels in to be among the first Pelicans 
(this includes Ansteorra's senior Pelican, Duchess Willow, as
well as Duke Cariadoc of the Bow).

>I know I can think of numerous
>individuals I would easily consider "Peers" who will never be recognized as
>such because they don't quite "fit" into one of the above categories because
>of whatever their "primary" activity is. So even though such individuals
>could provide a truly positive culture and input into one of the Peerage
>Orders, they should not be considered because their main area of activity is
>not one that can be easily pigeonholed? All of these may be way off from
>what you are considering a fallacy, good Sir, so I would be interested in
>hearing your views in greater detail. They may be just the thing to show why
>we should maintain the status-quo.

There _are_ other organizations who _do_ offer peerages for nearly
every pursuit.  But, no offense to friends like Ches and Little Conor,
I don't think the SCA should aspire to be like Amtgard.  I just don't
see that simple skill with siege weapons, or scouting, or equestrian 
games, or archery, or even rapier, is as important to the essence of
what we do as is tournament combat.  Not to say there is no room in
the SCA for these activies, on the contrary, we are enhanced by them,
and people sincerely enjoy them.  Because peerage is more than courtesy
and dignity, it is also achievement in combat, arts, or service.

>Honos Servio,
>Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg

So, just what makes peerage important, anyway?

- Galen

_____________________________________________________
John 20:21-23
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.