[Ansteorra] Stolen from the Ealdomerian Lexicon

[L T]

Marc Carlson <marccarlson20 at hotmail.com> wrote:>>L T ldeerslayer at yahoo.com Because the first two terms that people >>think of in regard to people who like and try to do period stuff are  >>"period police" and "period nazi"...

=I would be the last person to say that those terms don’t come up, and =that there are some folks who can think of no other way to describe a =concept that may have only been expressed negatively.  I am also =aware that there is an irritating (to me) tendency in the Society to find =a term to call something, and then use that term ceaselessly for that =*and anything else even similar* from then on, without ever giving any =thought to what that means (Hence things like Autocrat, Feastocrat, =and whatever the heck-ocrat is out there this week)..

I'm 100% with you in regard to the ?-crat issue.  It's more jarringly modern than a polyester T-Tunic (except Bran de Tintrack's first one which was/is "ick" green)

But it demonstrates my point. People come from the modern world and are taught that those are the terms to describe the job duties and person responsible and that that's the standard term construction to describe new jobs/persons. They accept it and don't think about how un-historic the terms are until they've done some study. Then there are
those who want to maintain the terminology so that we don't "forget where we come from" and those that don't want to have to deal with changing to different terminology cause they'd have to remember it.

I know from speaking to several of the originators of the SCA, and I would assume you know too, that much of the SCA was made up as they went along. For instance, the 1600 cut off was in a large part because they didn't want to deal with fire-arms or the new-world. Later, when people discovered that fire-arms were in Europe before 1600
and that there was more new-world stuff in Europe than they thought...
it was too late...they'd already been incorporated and to change the scope they would have to change the "Articles of  Incorporation" as 
well as have to deal with the populace.

If the SCA was overhauled to match what is now known of the things
that people guessed at or had more limited research on then; the SCA
would be a vastly different organization. But ya can't go back...and fix the past. But you can shift trends in the current.

=I guess my point is that it doesn’t matter what the term that is being =used IS as much as that there is a term at all.   

Okay, I've only got a BA in History and am an ameatuer anthropologist, definitly nothing up against your CV. (MILS, BA History and Anthropology and a professional historical researcher for many years)

But, people need descriptors. They always have and they always will.
It's part of the human wiring. And as much as you don't like labels...it's how we define the world around us...and how we gain understanding of each other.

=What we have is a spectrum of people with different feelings about a =particular topic.  I may not agree with this person or that person, but I’m =not sure I need a label that denigrates their humanity to express their =position on that spectrum.  

But that's you and you know the difference. Many of the people on this list don't know the difference and if they only hear a few terms and don't understand how truely derogatory they are...they're going to use them because we (the SCA) hasn't taught them the difference...they just picked it up like anyone learning a new "language."

=Certainly there are people who are very obnoxious about how they 
=feel, and how they act to those with a different position in that =spectrum – I have a whole slew of humanity denigrating labels for =THEM, but they appear all over that same spectrum.  The fact they are =acting like flatulent twits has nothing to do with their position on the =spectrum of authenticity/accuracy.

True to a point. Though very often people of a scholarly/research bent have socialization/communication problems and behave like "flatulent twits" at times, from my observations, the people acting like "flatulent twits" in this organization are often people who rate very low on their knowledge of authenticity and accuracy. They tend to be people who because of some personality issue need to be an authority and try to do so by denigrating others. They get their ego boost by being "better."

=Yes, some people who are interested in accuracy and authenticity do =label themselves as “Authenticity Police”, or “Authenticity mavens”, or =what have you (although I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen anyone who =called themselves an authenticity nazi).

I have once. Her Grace Katrina of Iron Mountain called herself a Dance Nazi while she lived in this Kingdom. ;)

= While in general I don’t, I have come up with some attempts at =humorously using Authenticity Police as a way of trying to cope with =the insult.  For the most part though, I’m not sure that most people who =fall into the category of flatulent twits who prefer authenticity (assuming =that they actually really exist in the numbers suggested) actually =realize that they are acting in any way that might seem Police like, or =Nazi like.

See above ...(personality issues)...they don't realize they are acting that way because they don't examine their own behaviour. If someone returned their behaviour to them they'd be offended...seen it happen way too often. 

People also expect that no matter what language they use or how they use it, that the person on the receiving end understands exactly what they mean.

Reality is...we don't all use the same language in the same context... and if you don't want to be misunderstood (and chase people off) or be seen as a clueless idiot, you have to figure out how to get your point across without getting peoples defenses up.

=I appreciate that you are wanting to make things easier for people, and =try to remove the sting of insult.  But really, lets say that we decide to =call all people who prefer authenticity “Blahblahs”, how long will it be =before people start using “Blahblah” as a negative term to refer to those =flatulent twits?

1. I'm just trying to give people alternatives so that they will have a broader vocabulary and maybe they won't immediately think of people who are very authenticity minded as "police."  They aren't going to go out of their way to figure it out...so I served it up to them.

2. Most of the people I know who are currently authenticity/accuracy buffs have blown this off forever...and have ended up with thick skins... what I'm worried about is those burgeoning authenticity/accuracy buffs
who would be incredible assets to this organization but who haven't developed thick skins yet...and also those people who really don't mean any offense, but , didn't know the difference.

=As far as I’m concerned, I’m a person, he’s a person over there, she’s =a person, them over there, we just have different interests and =approaches.  By labeling me a “blahblah”, you will soon stop thinking of =me as a person first, but as a thing first.  Here let me demonstrate – =replace “blahblah” in the previous sentence with “self-important, =condescending, tight-assed bozo” and see how tempting it is? :)

Most people's scope is made of those people in their immediate circles...everyone beyond that is not quite seen as "people" by them.
To them there is an "us" and a "them" even if they don't recognize it themselves. If you're not in their scope you will be either just some person or you will be "blahblah" person.

=Marc/Diarmaid

from one Peer to another,
with utmost respect and veneration,

LDeerSlayer "blahblah"  ;)
_______________________________________________



 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.