[Sca-cooks] Out of the food topic altogether rantAuthenticitypolice

[Jeff Gedney]

>> You comment about their garb implies that you have that very common idea that they only people
>> who can talk to anyone else about authenticity are people who have 100% of everything authentic.
>
>
>"Hello, Kettle??   This is Pot.  YOU'RE BLACK!!!"
>
>
>Yeah...don't go there, please.  If someone came up to me wearing polyester garb or Birkenstocks,
>and tried to deride me for using an undocumented recipe, I'd tell them where they could shove it,
>in no uncertain terms.
>
>Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.... or else keep your jaw closed.
>
> 

*sigh* 

by your standards we are never allowed to question anyone, ever, regardless of what they wear, what they do.

bullpucky

>If you can't be 100% accurate, then you sure as heck shouldn't heckle someone else who is not 100%
>accurate.

There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and offering some alternative sources. 
There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and offering a candid assessment of what you think about the persons efforts at the behest of the recipient. 
There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and mentioning quietly to a friend that susch and such is not all that period. 
There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and politely asking what sources they used. 
There is a PROFOUND difference between heckling someone and asking why modern elements are knowingly and intentionally chosen for activities or garb. 

I have at various times been accused of snarking and being an authenticity "nazi" ( even had my picture posted on a web site, my face on an SS officers uniform ) for simply pointing out, when asked, that rum, skulls and crossed bones and tricorn hats are not period, which even a little research past certain disney movies will show. 

I can't tell you the number of times I have seen people take an innocent and helpful observation as trenchant criticism, because it was toward greater authenticity, and the number of times I have seen a new person ask for how to make authentic garb only to be roundly and rather rudely told "dont make authentic garb it sucks, make a t-tunic", and people just nod and approve. 

>And maybe some other people just need to mind their own business, and not try to detract from
>another persons efforts.  Maybe??  Maybe??

Tell me, William, in what way is asking a person what sources they used detracting? 
If I as a cook, am interested in some food you are making, and I, as a cook do not know the provenance of your recipe, and I as a cook am primarily interested in period recipes, the simple fact that I am interested in period recipoes means I have to mind my own business? 

So the fact that I am interested in authenticity means I should butt out and go play in my corner and never talk to anyone because I might offend soemone by asking for provenance?

Sorry, but that is plain wrong. 

>It gained bearing the moment that person opened their mouth to question the author's motives or
>intentions.

why?
Why does the fact that I may not have a good deal on knowlege of 12th century clothing mean I cant know anything about 11th century Naabinding, or even 15th Century French cooking? 
The simeple fact is, that NOBODY can be expert in EVERYTHING.

I know people who have 100% perfect garb, and who could not tell me if a hamburger were period food or not. 
And I know people who wear polyester tunics or other equivalents and who can write doctoral level theses on the ingredients in powdre fort, or on peageantry or heraldry, or on falconry. 
So the fact that these people arent interested in dressing period means that they are NOT capable of making an informed commentary on wheterh stuff that they HAVE studied has period provenance? 

I bloody well think not. 

>If your own house isn't in order (100%) then you have no right or reason to question or accuse
>others.  That's the pot calling the kettle black, and it runs rampant in the SCA.

100% period is simply impossible. 
There is so much to recreate that the notion that you have to do everything perfectly before you can comment even on something you are well trained in is, to put it mildly, ludicrous.

Lets follow your logic to its extreme...
So next time a guy shows up in Klingon garb at my local event, because I might have orlon thread sewing my hose together, I can't have and express an opinion about it?

That, friend William, is crap.

I will admit, freely, that 90% of the cases of "authenticity policing" is committed by people who go about making unsolicited commentary and are are a**holes with nothing better to do. 
I do not in any defend them and their method of co-opting authenticity as a conversation hammer to put down another and thereby feel superior.

But a good 10% or more of "Authenticity Policing" actually occurs at the behest of the commented upon, who just dont like the answer they get and complain to their friends about it.  I have seen that happen a lot of times. It has happened to me, as I have said, on loads of topics, from rowboats to rum. 

But one thing is true, unless the laws of free speech are repealed, one place where "Authenticity policing" DOES NOT HAPPEN is here, in public fora, and while commenting upon a public topic, where even we authenticists are entitled to our opinion, and moreover bloody well entitled to express it. 

Capt Elias
-Renaissance Geek of the Cyber Seas

-------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather 
wood, divide the work, and give orders.  Instead, teach them
to yearn for the vast and endless sea. 
  - Antoine de Saint Exupery