[Ansteorra] RE: the Attack of the "Authenticity Police"

[Chass Brown]

Ahh but see there are people in the S.C.A. who like to be arses. Like the 
Wench who came into our encampment to tell me that my wheelchair was not 
period, that it was ruining her  "Ambiance" and that if I couldnt get around 
at events without my wheelchair then I shouldn't attend. Now why did she do 
this? To be an arse. Did I take it as so? Aye damn right I did. Did it hurt 
my feelings? Yes because I am still new to being stuck in this wheeled 
monstrosity, but I got over it and tend to give her a piece of my mind when 
next we meet since she aparently has no mind.  Does this tend to be the 
norm... in no way nor shape. I will say those who tend to be this way huddle 
together in little groups.... which everyone knows who they are.


Chass aka Charinthalis Del Sans
Muddeler of Mead, Ailment of Ale, Whiner of wine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Carlson" <marccarlson20 at hotmail.com>
To: <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: [Ansteorra] RE: the Attack of the "Authenticity Police"


Just a warning, this is one of those kinda rambling messages, but if you
take the time and bear with me, I think it actually goes someplace.

The problem with things like this term "Authenticity Police", and its
related terms is that they are labels intended to elicit a specific
knee-jerk response, as well as being labels meant to diminish the other
person's position to an object that can simply be dismissed.  In short, they
encourage people to just say things without thinking.  For example, while I
made the point yesterday that I am not offended by terms like troll, -ocrat
terms, etc.; being called a "nazi" -is- offensive to me (and many others),
and my knee-jerk response to it tends to be becoming deeply and aggressively
unpleasant to the speaker/writer.   "Authenticity police" does not offend
me, it's just inaccurate since the SCA has no rigid authenticity standards
there is nothing to police.  It's even more inaccurate to me since I make
such a fuss about NOT telling people that they HAVE to do x, y, or z   (I
mean, I guess I could, but what would the purpose be?).  "Authenticity
Maven", is still a label meant to diminish the other person's position to an
object that can simply be dismissed, but at least it's not inaccurate in
most cases.

Now, I -have- been called an authenticity Nazi by someone who I'm quite
certain was meaning it as a compliment, because all she'd ever heard it used
for was as something interchangeable with authenticity maven.  And so she
was understandably confused when I did not take it as a compliment.

I have also been called an authenticity Nazi by people who knew exactly what
the term meant, because they wanted to be insulting.

Ok, as has been discussed here, it is believed that there are some people
who want to push their views on authenticity onto others, and make them toe
the line, become more authentic and so on.  Is this true?  I'd be stupid to
say no, it never happens - I have weekly conversations with people who think
this is actually a good idea, but are frustrated since the SCA offers them
no recourse.  I daresay, the fact that there -is- no outlet for regular
authenticity is a prime reason that many people leave the SCA.

This is different from saying that there are people who stalk the
unsuspecting, jump them and beat them over their head with "what you are
wearing/doing/whatever is wrong so stop doing it".  Now, again, this happens
certainly (the first event I ever attended I had the then crown stop me and
dress me down for not being attired to his level of accuracy, something I
find highly amusing these days but at the time really made me angry).  Is it
common?  Without finding someway to do a broad research study to actually
test the numbers, I can't say, but my belief is that it isn't as prevalent
as is believed.   What -is- common is to have people who are very bad at
giving helpful suggestions on the one hand, and others who are overly
defensive on the other.

I once had a rather interesting disagreement with William Blackfox when he
tried to explain that something I was wearing was inaccurate.  Now, William
was a really great guy and a brilliant artist and such, but was not always
the most elegant in face to face discussions, and what he was saying could
well have seemed to be criticism had I chosen to take  it that way, when in
fact all he was really trying to do was be helpful.

Now, honestly, I have many examples of people being defensive -- for example
the guy who took offense just because I told him that I liked his boots - he
assumed I was being snide; or the guy who told me that I was being critical
of what he was wearing just by being dressed more accurately than he was.
People are going to find offense if they want to see it.

The issue of course is that no one likes to be told that what they are doing
is wrong, and there is often an unspoken assumption that if a person is told
that what they are doing/saying/wearing is wrong, that there must be an
implicit "stop doing that".  This becomes a problem when in fact this isn't
actually the case.

If I were to take the position that "Byzantines are not really European,
they talk that funny Greek language, not good real Latin, and should just be
barred from the SCA;" Xene, and others, would be well within THEIR rights to
disagree.  We might then proceed to array our arguments, and debate the
issue.   This might leave us ultimately with just continuing to disagreeing
on the matter  [as an aside, I have nothing against Byzantines - except that
they don't have enough archaeological data on shoes available to me in a
language I can read. *mutter*].    Now it really doesn't matter how good my
arguments are, how much better I think being an Irishman trapped in England
is over any of that Byzantine stuff - by the way the SCA is structured (and
I expect always will be), there is no way I can force anyone to not be
Byzantine.   The only thing I can do is show by example that I think it's
better, and why, and hope for some sort of understanding.

Now, we come to the really interesting part of this.  Remember the guy who
said I was pressuring him just by being dressed better than he was?   This
is not as stupid sounding as it first seems.  Once upon a time, there were a
lot of people who were interested in Authenticity, and they did their thing
quietly and alone, and it was generally accepted by the people who just
wanted to not have to worry about that sort of thing (unless of course they
tried to step out of their boundaries and threaten the status quo).  They
had no real way to communicate with others, or even know if there WERE
others who were interested in the same sorts of things they were [BTW, this
is written somewhat hyperbolically, but I'm trying to make a point].  Then
came the Internet and that changed - authenticists got the chance to start
to exchange information and see that they were not in fact alone.  And you
know what?  In the past 10 years or so, the level of attire has gotten more
accurate overall.

Except that as more people become interested in doing things more
authentically, there is an increased level of peer pressure (pressure from
one's peers, not pressure from the peerage, although there is some of that
too in some cases) on those people who really have no interest other than
doing things the good old SCA way.  Now, those of us who aren't interested
in doing things the good old SCA way but want to do things more historically
accurate experience the same sort of peer pressure as well.  The use of a
standardized tradition based argot is one way of enforcing that peer
pressure, so that every time we get hit in the face with terms like "troll"
or "garb" or whatnot, we are being told, you are not one of us, you do not
belong to OUR group unless you conform and use our terms.  Once upon a time,
this worked great, but now there are enough of us that we ARE a threat to
what people who are not like us want to do, just by our own presence - just
as they present a continual presence we have to contend with and avoid in
order to do what WE want to do.

So is this an insurmountably polarized diad?  I don't think it has to be.
First, most people aren't strictly one OR the other, but rather fall
somewhere in the middle ground.  Second, we all _have_ to accept that the
SCA, like all social structures, has to evolve to a certain extent, however,
with the more conservative traditionalists slowing down that evolution - and
that conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Growth and chance is good, but
unrestricted growth and change is potentially cancerous.   The SCA's lack of
authenticity standards is not, as some might argue, a bad thing - it's a
good thing.  That lack protects those of us who want to do MORE, just as it
protects the traditionalists who aren't interested in doing historical
accuracy.

Tolerance isn't just learning to accept that others are there; I suspect
it's more learning to just not care about what they are doing, and still
doing what you want to do.

To those who want to stick with the traditional SCA stuff, I'm glad to hear
it.  I respect what you are doing, but I expect that same respect.  I will
try not to insult you, if you will stop insulting me.  I understand that you
can feel pressured, so do we.   I am not going to stop doing what I am doing
just to please you, nor do I expect you to change what you are doing to
please me.  If you can't learn to live _with_ me, and accept that we are not
going to agree on this (and vice versa) we are both going to lose.

Marc/Diarmaid


_______________________________________________
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra