[Sca-cooks] OT Authenticity Police: since we're castigatingextremists anyway...

[Laura C. Minnick]

lilinah at earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Caitlin Cheannlaidir <rise.peters at spiegelmcd.com> wrote:
> >The most offensive behavior along these lines I've ever seen, though, was at
> >an event in Northern Virginia where someone took it on herself to give a
> >guest of mine a hard time about the unbleached rope belt he was wearing with
> >his perfectly authentic monk's robe.  She asserted that, standing there in a
> >monk's robe and sandals and a rope belt, he was pretending to be a member of
> >the chivalry.  She refused to let the topic go, and was so offensive that he
> >hasn't been back since.  But that's not "authenticity police", that's ...
> >I'm not quite sure what that is, besides bad manners to a guest.
>
> This person had a legitimate complaint. The white belt is the only
> SCA-wide protected clothing item (crowns are more like jewelry than
> clothing). ANY kind of white belt is ONLY allowed for Knights
> (Masters at Arms do not wear a white belt, they typically wear a
> white baldric). I'm sure they could have said it more politely, but
> they were right.

They may have been technically tight by the very narrowest vision of the
law, BUT they were incalculably rude, in my book. I'm sorry, but there
is no possibly way that anyone could have mistaken a man in monk's robes
and a rope belt for a Knight. Period. And as the traditional outfit for
a Franciscan brother includes a rope belt, then does not the SCA rule
interfere with authenticity? The SCA rule have absolutely nothing to do
with authenticity- the evidence of white belts specific to knights in
period is tenuous at best. So it is a self imposed criteria that we
created in the modern world to sort ourselves visually. I daresay it
should not have gained teh Holy Writ status so as to keep some folks
from dressing appropriately in persona, no?

At any rate, whoever it was may have been technically right, but they
were WRONG WRONG WRONG in their actions. If they had left his fellow
alone it would have hurt no one. But going out of one's way (and this
manner described sounds like someone who _looks_ for things to be
offended at) to rip into a new person hurt many- not just the new guy,
but his companion, but also the multitudes of people who were deprived
of a friend, resource,and all of the potential that comes into the SCA.
This guy could have learned and taught great things, he could have one
day been a faithful servant, a wise teacher, a just ruler. And we
alienated him for WHAT? The actions that day gained us nothing. And look
what we lost.

Sorry- it hit a hot button. I figure newbies have immunity for a few
months- then they can be gently guided or written off. But not before
then. Geez.

'Lainie