From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Inflammatory rhetoric (History v. dreams, period songs, consort gender)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 17:31:29 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!  

I am concerned with the turn this discussion and others have taken.  Hans
wrote:

> ... 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... If anything it seems to me that an
> insistence on historical correctness will drive out the dreamers. 

T. Archer offered:

> Those who fail to goose-step to the turn of the rigid reproduction of
> life in the Old Middle-Ages are persecuted. 

I hope you were intentionally exaggerating, Archer.  I'm not sure why it
is, but whenever we start comparing the virtues of re-creation and
historical adaptation, there seems to be a violent reaction from the
adaptation side.  It is the "authenticity police" myth, that the people
interested in authentic re-creation are somehow going to "force out" people
interested in a freer adaptation of medieval ideas.

It simply isn't true.

The problem, I think, is that people across the spectrum are making a
fundamental mistake: They are saying "The Society is..." when they really
mean "What I like to do in the Society is..."  In fact, the Society is a
very loosely defined, broad-based framework which has room for all these
opinions.  No one is right or wrong, no approach is inherently better or
worse.  They are different and they achieve different goals, and so they
appeal to different people with different interests.  Different events are
aimed at different interests.  No one is trying to drive out anyone else,
and no one is persecuting anyone else.  If we would all resist the
temptation to inflated rhetoric, we'd get on together much better.


Disturbingly, the same pattern has shown up in two other threads.


On period songs: From a very reasonable discussion of the differences among
medieval work, re-creation, and modern adaptation, it has somehow mutated
into a confrontation.  Ioseph wrote:

> I'll keep singing what I feel the particular group likes...  There is a
> place and a time for BOTH types.   It is a shame that the art of SCA
> songs in (that Kingdom) is dying out. They've gotten so much into being
> Authenticity Nazis about the music that they only perform what's
> documentable and preserved in formaldehyde.'  Never forget that the SCA
> song is a -living- folk tradition.

I've gone back and checked, Ioseph, and nothing on this subject even
remotely suggested the points-of-view against which you seem to be
defending.  Every poster said, in some way or another, that filk songs are
approriate at some times.  Every poster said that SCA songs with modern
elements had value.  No one came even close to what you characterize as
"authenticity nazis".  You're defending against attacks that simply weren't
there.


On consort gender, Thom Watson wrote:

> I regret the sarcasm, but I get steamed whenever I hear SCAdians
> appealing to historical accuracy as an excuse for bigotry and homophobia.

I hope you realize how much you are exaggerating.  "Bigotry" and
"homophobia" refer to irrational hatred.  Do you truly believe that the
official position of the SCA is to support irrational hatred?  That's
certainly not something I've ever encountered in the Society.  More to the
point, nothing posted on the Rialto can be construed as "bigotry and
homophobia".  On the contrary, what we've seen is some carefully
considered, reasoned argument why the Society ought to have mixed-sex
ruling couples.  Perhaps those arguments do not convince you; perhaps they
are not sufficient reason to forbid same-sex ruling couples.  But they are
decidedly not irrational hatred, and to label them as such is to pick a
fight where none was offered.  Personally, I believe that sexuality should
not be used as a basis of discrimination, but we aren't talking about
sexuality: Ruling couples aren't required to be sex partners.  The
arguments against same-sex ruling couples say that, for one reason or
another, the sex of the consort is a legitimate qualification for the job.
You are welcome to disagree, and to post your counter-arguments, but you
accomplish nothing by attaching inappropriate & derogatory labels to them.


Gentles all, net news offers an insidious temptation to inflammatory
rhetoric.  It's not surprising: We see it all around us in the election,
where all parties fill the media with exaggerations, distortions, and
downright lies.  It is much easier to denigrate the opposition than to
logically counter his arguments, and it is easier to forget to treat them
as honorable friends when they never get closer than the computer screen.
Resist the temptation, my friends.  If you disagree, take the time to
explain why; don't jump to the barricades until someone really attacks.
We're all on the same side.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca