SC -Vikings on Nova

[sdrake]

> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:20:46 EDT
> From: JVButlerJr at aol.com
> Subject: SC - Suleyman's Manifesto
> 
>     I specifically have been talking about using period recipes that include 
> ingredients that didn't get used in Europe until very late period or after 
> period, but were used elsewhere during period.
> 
>     Let me repeat that, as if sounds vaguely important:
> 
>     I SPECIFICALLY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT USING PERIOD RECIPES THAT INCLUDE 
> INGREDIENTS THAT DIDN'T GET USED IN EUROPE UNTIL VERY LATE PERIOD OR AFTER 
> PERIOD, BUT WERE USED ELSEWHERE DURING PERIOD.
> 
>     Reread that a couple of times.  Make sure you understand my point.
> 
>     I am not talking about using tomatoes in a European feast.  I am not 
> talking about dropping a bananna dish in the middle of a Norwegian 
> smorgasbaard.  I AM, however, talking about possibly including dishes in an 
> ASIAN I REPEAT ASIAN AND NOT EUROPEAN feast which include such things as 
> tomatoes, banannas, peanuts, hot peppers, and other items on the official 
> "banned in Western Europe list".  
> 
>     And I want to do these recipes, not to show my contempt at what people 
> consider to be period, but to show people that "Period" includes more than 
> Western Europe, and that there is a world of good food out there that 
> shouldn't be ignored just because the recipes don't come from "Venice and all 
> points west."

It sounds as if this discussion hinges on the definition of period,
which, unfortunately, makes using the concept of periodicity in an
argument meaningless. This is a matter of interpretation. People can
give you guff over attempts to introduce foods that they consider
temporally or geographically inappropriate. People can give me guff over
my early period studies. We can choose to ignore those criticisms and
study what we want to study, but your telling us that period is a lot
more than the narrow confines dictated by the governing documents of the
SCA doesn't make it so. In order to show people that "period" includes
more than Western Europe, and that there is a world of good food out
there that shouldn't be ignored just because the recipes don't come from
"Venice and all points west," then SOP around here is to find and
present proof, and to base your conclusions _on_ that proof, rather than
to make a predetermined conclusion out of what seems like thin air, and
find evidence that seems to support it.  
 
>     My specific idea was to do an "Age of Exploration" feast which included 
> period recipes... PERIOD RECIPES, NOT "BLATANTLY MODERN FOOD"... from the 
> various places that European travellers went.  Thai soups, Indian desserts, 
> Korean meat dishes, Chinese breads, Japanese fish recipes, African vegetable 
> dishes, Arabian coffees... and yeah, maybe even something from North or South 
> America, if I can find a recipe and PROVE THAT THE RECIPE IS PERIOD.

Okay, I applaud that. You've taken on a challenge. Any plans on how to
proceed? Have you been holding out on us?
 
>     None of these items would be "blatantly modern".  I see nothing blatantly 
> modern about imam bayildi (arabic), or tam ka gai (Burmese), or steamed 
> salmon with rice and vinegar (Japanese), or bluefish stuffed with grapes 
> (Arrowak indian), or phad kaprow (Thai).  There is nothing that would destroy 
> the atmosphere about Mujadarra (arabic again), beef roast with yogurt 
> (Mongolian), mushrooms with black bean and pepper sauce (Afghan), or orange 
> slices with honey (Kenyan).
>     All of the food I just mentioned are all period recipes, and all come 
> from cultures other than Europe.  Point to the one which is "blatantly 
> modern".

I can't point to any that are blatantly modern, although the imam
bayildi recipe, which is supposedly Turkish, I have never seen in a
non-tomato-ey form, or, for that matter, a tomato-ey form, prior to the
eighteenth or nineteenth century. Have you? Unless I missed something
about documentation for this, it _sounds_ (and forgive me if I missed
evidence to the contrary) as if you're taking a modernish dish in its
current form and using it to justify an assumption that the dish existed
in period, and other than vague implications of common knowledge, you
haven't supplied the list with a lot of evidence that the foods you
refer to as period actually are. Perhaps this is the point where one
mght think, "Well, if you're not convinced yet, after all the evidence
I've presented, you're never going to be." This is not the case, though.
Perhaps you could think of this as a thesis defense or even a trial.  

See, you're making a claim, a thesis, if you will, in an environment
that has been known, at times, to be semi-scholarly, and there are basic
rules of logic and academic form (having more to do with reproducing
experimental results than with stuffiness) that need to be observed if
you expect your thesis to be taken seriously. Your options then are A)
change the thesis claim, B) change the supporting argument so that it
works, i.e. is convincing to people who aren't so much emotionally
opposed to your argument as simply unable to see that your logical
sequence holds true. In a legal sense, you can either find enough
legitimately admissable evidence to support your claim or plea, or you
can abandon the claim or plea. Appeals are welcome. Ask me about
cuskynoles sometime.   
 
>     This has been my point all along:  "Period does not always mean Western 
> Europe, and just because it wasn't done in Western Europe doesn't mean it 
> wasn't done elsewhere.  Keep an open mind and you might learn something."

Absolutely true. You appear to have information many of us don't have,
and I for one would love to learn more about it. I still question
whether the project you have in mind is within the scope of the SCA. So
far the most compelling argument that's been raised is that you want it
to be, but I'd enjoy seeing more.
 
>     If the idea of doing things "outside the Western European box" is 
> offensive to you, I apologize for wasting your time.

Okay, here's where I really have to remember what tact is. (Takes deep
breath in through nose, out through mouth...)

Y'see, what's happening here, I think, is you're assuming there's an
adverserial relationship. Some people don't seem to wanna buy what
you're selling at the moment, and that is frustrating, of course. The
thing is, it's not a personal affront, and if any adverserial
relationship exists, it isn't between the list, or anyone on it, and
you. The best analogy I can come up with is that you're climbing a
mountain, and people are watching you from the foot of the mountain.
They want you to succeed, but you're not at the top yet. They can see
that. You may want to be, and may even believe you're there, but you're
not, at least as far as outside witnesses can tell. But ultimately your
conflict, and your test, is the mountain.
 
If you really think this project belongs in the SCA setting, then fight
for it, but do so by learning everything you can on Asian and other
non-European foods prior to 1601, and then gauging their relevance to
the SCA's theme, not by an exercise of wishful thinking. Which may not
be what you're doing, but so far it's how it appears. And anger isn't
helping, because it only makes the arguments seem weaker.

As for the feast you speak of, go ahead and do what you want, if you can
get enough support and help. Regarding the specific claims of
periodicity for things like Mongolian use of chilis prior to the SCA's
only stated cutoff date, well, I'm all ears. Is there a caravan invoice?
A grave find? A recipe? A dated drawing? An unequivocal literary
reference? Banking or insurance records? What?

Adamantius  
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com