From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (A.J.S. Nusbacher)
Subject: Re: History vs. dreams
Organization: University of Toronto -- Hart House
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:04:08 GMT

IN which Aryk and Hans finally figure out what they are talking about...

Here is what Hans said, which pushed a bit of a button:

	I've been browsing on the
	Rialto for the year and more we've recieved it here in Denmark, and I've
	been saddened to note the vigour of the historical reenactment movement.

And I complained that he ought to leave historical re-enactors alone:

>>No, it's door number three.  I am reproving you for being "saddened to note
>>the vigour of the historical reenactment movement".

And Hans said:

>But my feelings are not really something that you have a right to reprove
>me for, is it? 

Perhaps not.

>You can tell me that I shouldn't be because the impression
>of the SCA that I've gotten from browsing here is faulty, or that I
>shouldn't be because that situation is really the best way for things to
>be. But I have recieved a certain impression, and I do deplore it.

And now it dawns on Nusbacher.  Hans wasn't complaining about re-enactors
in general, he was complaining about people within the SCA who seem to
be re-enactors by inclination, and Scadians by membership.  He was lamenting
the vigour of the historical re-enacment movement _within_the_SCA.  Now
I get it!

Hans said:

>.... Historical reenactment sounds fun. Just not as fun as what I had
>the impression the SCA used to be.

And this is something I can agree with.  I am convinced that the SCA is
not a good place for historical re-creation.  I had just always looked at
it from the opposite side--the historical re-creation being impaired by
the SCA environment, rather than the SCA environment being impaired by 
the history wonks.

I had said:

>>There is a distinct difference between the mainstream of the SCA and
>>historical re-enactment.  A "split", a "schism", but hardly a yawning gulf
>>of any description.  There are people who could be called re-enactment
>>buffs who are in the SCA.  There are idealists and romantics in re-enactment
>>and re-creation groups, in spite of insistence on historical accuracy.  Some-
>>times they are the same people.

To which Hans replied:

>Accepted, accepted. So what should I call the "Current Middle Age" buffs?

Scadians, SCA'ers, Sca-heads...

I objected to the dichotomy between "re-enactors" within the SCA and
"dreamers".

>I've done nothing of the kind, and I'm astonished that I've expressed
>myself so badly that you could possibly read that into my text. I've
>mentioned an impression that I had, that a group of people inside the
>SCA wanted to change it away from the way it was at first, and
>expressed the opinion that that was sad (Because I liked the original
>way better).

Which causes me to wonder whether you've actually been to an SCA event.

And now it comes down to this.  I said:

>>There is no call for strictures on re-enactors.  They are not a threat to
>>the SCA.

>And my impression that some re-enactors calls for strictures on "the other
>types" is wrong? That's good, but you should be aware that one can get
>that impression from reading what's posted here.

And here it is:  People who think that the SCA is all about history often
think that the rest of the Scadians ought to appreciate this, mostly be-
cause the SCA says that it's all about history.  The historical re-creation
wing within the SCA frequently lobbies for increased authenticity in the
common institutions of the SCA, and many from that wing are convinced that
all of the SCA ought to pay more attention to history.

And it is this tendency that Hans was lamenting, rather than the development
of the hobby of re-creating the Middle Ages outside the SCA.

I've got it now.

Aryk

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca