From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Heraldic Questions...
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:40:19 GMT

Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim) writes:

> HR> That's fair enough. But doesn't that mean that if consensus changes
> HR> then practice should change too, regardless of what people have
> HR> "always" done?

> Not necessarily. If there is an established consensus that marks an
> organization with a certain character, then just because the membership
> changes (which may or may not involve a change of the consensus of the
> current membership) doesn't mean that that character therefore ought to
> change as well. The "consensus" here includes past members who worked to
> establish that character.

  I have to admit that I don't agree with this argument.  I do have to admit, 
though, that if a kingdom wanted to change the way they chose royalty they'd
have to have substantial agreement from throughout the kingdom before I'd be
comfortable agreeing to it.  (Given the nature of kingdoms, this seems
unlikely to happen.)  In the absence of a specific consensus for change, the
status quo should continue.

> HR> It is my impression that the Society survives (perhaps even thrives?)
> HR> on just such diversity in other fields. Why should this be different
> HR> for heraldry?

> > Why should heraldry be the same as other fields? The danger in diversity
> > is that people lose sight of the overall picture of what the Middle
> > Ages were like.

  Why _shouldn't_ heraldry be like other fields?  I don't see why it should be
the only art which is allowed to exclude period examples.  Also, French,
English, German, and Italian heraldry all have examples of heraldry that 
violates the rule of tincture.  Color-on-color heraldry was part of the
mainstream culture of the middle ages, and we are refusing to allow it.  While
it would certainly take effort to incorporate the rules into our system, it is
something that we should do.
 

> The peoplewho founded the SCA, and whose attitudes presumably carry some sort of
> authority with respect to "what the organization is for", apparently
> wanted to re-create the Middle Ages of the Arthurian-romance tournament.

> What they didn't (and I don't) intend is an SCA that looks like a poor
> imitation of a RenFaire rehearsal; and (I assert) that is what this
> shotgun "diversity" kick will produce.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> HR> Well, being restricted in the use of heraldry does seem to impair
> HR> those of you who want to emulate personae from outside your preferred
> HR> time and place.

> > No, it merely discourages them (without, however, barring them entirely)

> HR> I know that no two words are truly synonymous in all situations, but in
> HR> making a distinction between "impairing" and "merely discouraging" you
> HR> are performing a feat of sophistry that defeats my knowledge of english.
> HR> What's the difference?

> *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

> There is nothing to prevent someone with a Polish or Hungarian persona
> from using the most truly appalling instance of "typical" Polish or
> Hungarian armory that the mind of man can conceive. They just can't
> register it.

> There is a certain moral pressure on people to register the armory they
> use. There are in a number of areas a requirement that one have registered
> armory (not, please note, that what is registered be what one actually
> uses); such areas are functionally negligible - awards scrolls and such.
> This moral pressure, however, cannot prevent someone who is willing to
> ignore it from accomplishing 98% of what there is to be accomplished in
> the SCA, including the throne, the peerage, the cover of Tournaments
> Illuminated, and myriad opportunities to look down one's nose at others in
> public.

> This is the distinction between "discouraging" and "barring". It's like
> smoking in the workplace: if people look down on you for it, it's
> "discouraged"; if you can get fired for it, it's "barred".

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     > -- which I think is a Good Thing; there are far too many centrifugal
>     > forces active in the SCA as it is. Looking at the SCA, one would
>     > think that the dominant cultures in Period were Celtic and
>     > Scandinavian, and that the French, Germans, Spanish, and Italians
>     > were just fringe groups. The problem here ought to be obvious.

> HR> That too many people in the SCA are interested in other periods than the
> HR> one you are interested in?

> *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

> No, that people will get the wrong idea about what is central and what is
> peripheral when it comes to the Middle Ages. Since you seem to require
> words of close to one syllable, I'll do the best I can: France, Spain,
> Italy, and Germany were more important in the Middle Ages than Norway,
> Sweden, Denmark, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.

> In case you hadn't noticed, my "persona" is Irish; I'm far more interested
> in one of these fringe cultures than in the mainstream ones. Unlike some,
> however, I don't contend that such interest justifies redirecting the
> focus of the SCA away from that mainstream.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     > What do you mean by "part of"? Denmark certainly imported a lot of
>     > culture from elsewhere in Europe, and melded it with native
>     > institutions, but one could ignore Denmark totally and still leave
>     > most of "Western Medieval Culture" intact -- the same could not be
>     > said of northern France, for example.

> HR> It could certainly be ignored and leave most of the part of Western
> HR> Medieval Culture that you prefer intact. Circular argument again.
> HR> It is not important because it is not important.

> *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

> Find a history of medieval Europe; I don't care which one. Cut out all
> pages that mention Denmark or anything coming from Denmark. Weigh what's
> left. I will bet you a large sum of money that the difference between
> "before" and "after" will be less than 5%. That says to me (and to any
> rational individual) "not very important".

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> HR>Really? It's been a long time since I browsed through my old copies of
> HR>Amra, so I may misremember, but the stuff I read there didn't seem to
> HR>indicate quite that amount of reverent seriousness.

>    > So what's your point? As is often mentioned, the Society improves over
>    > time.

> HR> First you cite the Founders as supporting your point, and when I question
> HR> that you switch to arguing that things have luckily improved since those
> HR> Bad Old Days. Do you think you could make up your mind? Or is that the
> HR> problem? That you have made up your mind completely?

> Yes. I am firmly of the conclusion that you are the single densest
> individual I have ever met in my life. As for the above, I don't see any
> conflict between the two, therefore there is nothing to "make up my mind"
> *about*. The SCA started off as a certain type of organization. It has
> since progressed toward more authenticity. I see value in either
> perspective, although of course I prefer the latter. The "We're just in a
> play, we can make it up as we go along" attitude, however, is consistent
> with neither.

> I can print it in large letters with crayon if that's what you need....

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

>  > I wouldn't call it "reverence", but I (for one) am very serious >about
>  > what I am attempting to accomplish in the SCA, and what the SCA ought
>  > to be accomplishing. I didn't joing the SCA to be in a fringe-fandom
>  >costume party. I resent those who attempt to turn it into one.

> HR> I wouldn't call it "resentment", but I liked what I read about the SCA in
> HR> those Amras long ago. It sounded like good clean fun and it saddens me
> HR> when I see how serious it all seems to have gotten.

> So you're bitching because the organization doesn't match "what you read
> in those Amras long ago"? Seems to me that you have even less
> justification for complain than you say I do. If you are looking for
> Fantasyland, there's one in Caid and one in Trimaris. They are not,
> however, part of the SCA.

> * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca