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

[Chris Stanifer]

--- Bronwynmgn at aol.com wrote:

> <<I wish my experience was similar to yours.  In my own  experience, 
> 'Authenticity Police' seem to be
> working from a  'holier-than-thou' mindest, which I find despicable, and 
> which is why the term  has
> gained a negative connotation. >>
>  
> And sometimes people assume that anyone who mentions authenticity in a  
> positive light automatically has a "holier than thou" attitude, whether they  
> actually do or not. 

Well, there's a line here, which we need to educate people on (on both sides of the issue).  Just
because someone is interested in authenticity does not make them a monster.  It is a matter of
delivery, which is what my previous post on the subject attempted to illustrate.  If you are asked
for your advice and/or offer it kindly, and without malice, then you are without sin (at least in
this matter).  However, if you walk about the camp looking for things to pick people apart about,
then you are a petty, childish, unwelcome wart on the cheek of my backside.


 I have a friend who was approached by someone asking  if the 
> gown she had made from a mundane pattern was period.  My friend was  very 
> circumspect and said it was fine for SCA use.  The person insisted she  wanted the 
> details of how it was or wasn't period, so my friend pointed out that  the 
> colors were great and the overall style was close, but that zippers and  fake 
> lacing made of rick-rack braid weren't period.  The person who  had asked for her 
> opinion ran away in tears, and I'm sure told  everyone how mean this 
> authenticity police person was, despite the fact  that she had insisted she wanted the 
> information in the first place.


Again..how was the information delivered?  Asking for assistance is not necessarily an invitation
to a raking over the coals (and I am in no way implying that this is what your friend did).  If
the information was delivered with tact and concern for the other person's feelings, then your
friend was obviously talking to an overly sensitive person.  However, if your friend took the
opportunity to belittle the attempt, then.... you know.


> << What
> I do NOT take well is someone standing  over me wearing a pair of sunglasses, 
> and ridiculing my use
> of Doc Martins on  the battlefield.  And don't try to CYA by giving me some 
> clap-trap about  how you
> *have* to wear them because the Tetracyclene you are taking for your  Cystic 
> Acne makes you
> sensitive to sunlight.  That just makes things  worse.>>
>  
> In my opinion, it's a valid medical reason to depart from historical  
> accuracy, and bears no relationship to whether they are right about  Doc Martens 
> being period footwear.  But it also has no bearing on the fact  that if they are 
> really ridiculing you about it, then they are being  overbearingly rude even if 
> every single thing about their person WAS totally  accurate. 

Right.  No quarrel with that statement, and I think you understood where I was coming from.  The
divergence comes when the bespectacled nosey-neighbor tries to *deride* someone for their choice
of modern footwear, when they, themselves, are wearing modern glasses (and yes, I know that
eyeglasses are said to have been available in period....but Ray-Bans weren't, I'm pretty sure.) 
Please notice that I used the word 'deride', which is a negative term.  It does not apply to a
simple, well-phrased and well-intentioned comment.  A few people have been messaging me privately
on this topic, and are apparently unable to make that connection.  Perhaps a class on the
difference between courteous comments and venomous criticism should be taught at Estrella this
year?

 I have to wear 
> mundane eyeglasses to function at an event.   I've tried a number of contact 
> options and my eyes don't tolerate them.  By  your criteria, since I have no 
> choice but to wear the mundane glasses for my own  safety, I should then never 
> mention anything about authentic clothing, cooking,  or anything else to anyone 
> else, even though I may have just the information  they are looking for.  
> That is nonsensical.


Now,  I have clearly indicated in all of my posts on this topic that I am referring *only* to
those individuals who criticize with malice and a 'holier-than-thou' attitude.  If you wish to
insult me or maliciously criticize *my* authenticity, then you had durned well better not let me
see anything inauthentic on your own person, or you'll get both barrells.  If you camp in a nylon
tent, and you wish to open a friendly discussion or debate with me on the merits (or lack thereof)
of a particular aspect of my camp/clothing/persona/TV Dinners, then I will happily engage you. 
However, if you poke your head out of a nylon tent to sneer and snicker at my Hasty-Tunic (tm),
then...you know.  Believe it or not, there is a difference.  When does that class start this
year???
 
> Then no one can ever possibly ever discuss authenticity with anyone ever  
> again.  Because there is probably no one in the SCA who doesn't have some  
> inaccuracy about their person, even if they have made every effort to be as  
> accurate as humanly possible.  Hey, I've had and survived a cesarian  section with a 
> living baby.  By your criteria, that will forever prohibit  me (and my child, 
> when he's old enough to do so) from ever talking to  anyone about anything 
> authentic, because the fact that I and my child are alive  and I have a surgical 
> scar across my lower abdomen means neither I nor he  are perfectly authentic.  
> It doesn't matter if I am the soul of courtesy  and only answer questions 
> that you ask me without ever criticizing; you said it  doesn't matter how 
> politely I speak to you, but that I have no right to speak to  you at all on that 
> subject.

No, I don't recall writing that.  What I do recall writing is that, if you are not perfectly
authentic, then you can never *criticize* me for my own imperfections.  The sentence "It's not a
matter of 'how' the person talks to you at that pont...it's a matter of 'if'" was written in that
context.  The entire message was written in that context, from the very first paragraph.  As for
your childbirth and subsequent scarring, It would take a pretty long, annoying, venomous,
uninvited criticism from you to ever make me bring something like that up.  I'd very likely just
start ignoring you before it came to that.  I'm not a monster (much).  Like I said, I'll have a
discussion with anyone, about anything, so long as it is done in the right way.  But, if you want
to pick nits to make yourself look better, you'd be better served doing it to someone else.

> 
> <<Now, if someone has their own ducks  in a row, and wishes to offer up 
> advice to me on a particular
> subject, then I  *may* listen to them.  If they are 100% authentic in every 
> aspect of their  SCA
> life, then I *will* listen to them, and thank them for taking the time to  
> offer their insights.
> 
> Everyone else can keep their  distance.>>


Ahhh..... *that's* the paragraph which is confusing people.  "Everyone else can keep their
distance" is referring to those who wish to criticize, not the whole of the SCA. :)  Remember,
there is a difference between comment and criticism.

>  
> Then you are going to be extremely lonely.  Because there isn't anyone  in 
> the SCA or even the mundane academic historical world who can fulfil the  
> criteria you've set for who can give you advice.  Even if someone had a  time 
> machine and went back to 1404 and bought all their supplies there and  brought them 
> back, they still wouldn't be 100% historically accurate, because  they might 
> have fillings in their teeth, had survived a disease because of  antibiotics, 
> and at the very least simply have no way or reproducing the mindset  and 
> upbringing of a 14th century adult.


Right.  If taken out of context then, yeah.... I'm going to be pretty lonely.  However, if kept
within the context of the message, what this means is that you cannot criticize me unless you,
yourself, are beyond reproach.  And that, m'lady, just ani't a-gonna happen.  Talk to me all you
want...offer up constructive and friendly advice.... ask me my opinion on this-or-that... but
don't sneer, snicker and point from behind your Ray-Bans and Nylon tent flap, unless you are
prepared for the harsh, glaring light of exposition.

William de Grandfort


=====
Through teeth of sharks, the Autumn barks.....and Winter squarely bites me.


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail