[Ansteorra] Stolen from the Ealdomerian Lexicon

[Marc Carlson]

>From: L T <ldeerslayer at yahoo.com>
>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)

Drives me nuts...

>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…

Absolutely.  Even today there are a lot of folks who'd like to keep those 
things out.  Not me, mind you, but other folks who feel that things like 
firearms are antithetical to the romantic view of the Middle Ages.

Sure, but in the mundane world, we frequently have multiple terms for the 
same item.  For instance, I drive a car, an auto, a Chevy, a Malibu, etc.  
And it’s the same vehicle.

In fact, having a single, technically correct term for things (when that 
actually happens), is a modern thing.  Historically, terminology was often a 
lot more flexible.  I don’t mind remembering where we came from, and really 
think we should teach more SCA history anyway.  But you know, most folks 
today, even the ones who aren’t that interested in "authenticity" wouldn't 
be caught dead in some of the outfits worn in 1967.

>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.

I understand that.  It does seem that making that sort of change isn't 
impossible though, just painfully slow.

>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'm not sure that anyone's suggesting changing the past.  There are some 
things that are evolving though, for instance, the awareness of historical 
combat techniques, has made some inroads into SCA combat.

>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)

With all due respect, piffle.  I'm not looking to debate credentials.  I'm 
just disagreeing with you.  Ain't no big thing there.  You are certainly 
entitled to your opinions.  My opinions are simply different from yours.

>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.

I agree that people *use* labels to make things easy for themselves.  I just 
happen to think that it's unfortunate.

One of the things that drives me nuts about the whole "political 
correctness" thing is that we keep running across the issue of  - well we 
can't call this that any more, we have to use some other term – when the 
problem is that the new term is all too often not any better than its 
predecessor.  We're still stuck with the issue of considering people by 
those labels, and not addressing the issue of acknowledging them as people 
*first*.

>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."

I know, I know.  I'll just be happy if people can take away from this thread 
that this there may be something to think about.

>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."

I'm right there with you.  I'd even go so far as to say that people who are 
a number of a scholarly/research bent sometimes act like that even though 
they don't have the excuse of just not knowing any better.  Stupidity and 
arrogance aren't restricted to any one group of people.  Personally, I don't 
consider myself an authority in anything.  I'm just a student of many 
things, and am learning new things all the time.

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

I'll take your word for it.  I've never had the pleasure of meeting the 
lady.

>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.

Absolutely.

>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.

I wish that I was never misunderstood :)

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

It's a good goal.  And it's entirely possible that I'm totally out in left 
field on this.  I'd just prefer to think that some folks will realize that 
labels aren't necessary all the time.

>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.

Maybe it would be better if those of us who've been blowing it off all 
along, didn’t.  Don't ask me how, or what we should do better – no one likes 
to be corrected, especially if we meant well in what we were doing.

>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.

Again, you may be right.  I have this naïve believe that people *can* learn 
though, that just because someone is different from them, that they aren't 
*that* different.

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

Right back atcha :)

Marc/Diarmaid