ANST - The infinite peer theory, part II

Dennis Grace sirlyonel at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 18 11:02:22 PDT 1999


Hi.

Lyonel aisai.

To my -
> > 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."

Baron Kazimir says:

>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.

While I find this a fascinating emotional appeal, I find it somewhat lacking 
in solid warrants.  Yes, the SCA has grown into a more accepting and diverse 
group, but we certainly did not start that way.  We still have very few 
female knights, some kingdoms have a history of racism, and I've yet to meet 
an openly gay male knight.  What you call a social compact I call the 
unavoidable influence of a pervasive ideology (not that I think this a 
negative influence).

In response to my claim -

> > 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.

Kazimir says:

>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.

I'm sorry, but I believe you've just refurted your own point.  You said our 
re-creation should create no second class citizens; I said it does by its 
nature; you have agreed but added that the classes are pretend.  If our 
relationship as a knight and a don are merely pretense, then the inequity is 
pretense.

<snip Kazimir's discussion of inequities>

I think we all understand the inequities argument.  To summarize:

All forms of service to the SCA are recognized by the Pelican.

All forms of A&S re-creation are recognized by the Laurel.

Only one martial form is recognized by the Chivalry.

Ergo, an inequity exists in the martial arena.  Sir Jon's proposal attempts 
to address this inequity by creating a fourth peerage that includes all the 
remaining medieval European martial arts.

The biggest problem I see with this argument goes back again to Kazimir's 
supposed social compact.  The peerages of the SCA were not created to 
recognize every possible contribution in every possible field.

The original peerage, the Chivalry was created in an attempt to re-create 
one of the most pervasive institutions of Medieval Europe, a claim that 
neither the Laurel or the Pelican can make.  Within that model, outstanding 
archery would not have been rewarded with knighthood.  Within that model, 
outstanding spear throwing and scouting and siege weapon operation would 
also not have been rewarded with knighthood.

I also argued that:
> > 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.

No, it's not a red herring. I'm not arguing for a Laurel to be given for 
siege weapon construction; I'm arguing that the endeavor is never rewarded 
with recognition at the peerage level.  Without those recreations, our 
combat simulations would be diminished.  Many Pelican perform services 
without medieval precedent, but that question never arises.  No one in a 
Pelican circle says, "But, we can't recognize *that* service, it was done 
with a computer."

> > 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.

Again, you're applying the Laurel yardstick.

>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.

Fine.  Backgammon and chess are documentable medieval and renaissance 
activities, yet they do not have a peearage possibility for prowess in them, 
either.  Nor would I advocate one.

lo vostre por vos servir
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list