From: rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:01:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

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

>   Hans Rancke wrote:

>HR>>One might just as well argue that our monarchs ought to be elected by >HR>>our nobles, because the Empire and Poland were run that way.

>HR>Well, if your Corpora allows it then that is certainly a valid argument,
>HR>isn't it? Wasn't Arval's argument that Corpora _didn't_ restrict your
>HR>heraldic styles the way your College did?

>The point is that monarchs typically were not elected; doing so is
>eccentric, and there's no "valid argument" available.

You've just said that the Empire and Poland had elected kings (I'll take
your word for that since I don't know too much about that). I can inform
you that the Scandinavian kingdoms did too. So what is typical? Well,
obviously the people of your preferred slice of Period. So you're
arguing in circles here. The people who did things the way you want
them done didn't do things the way you don't want them done. Wonderful.
Any other place and time in Period appears to be atypical and need not
be taken into account.

>The point I was
>trying to make is that not every aspect of SCA life is regulated by
>Corpora -- far more is "regulated" by people doing what they have always
>done, based on consensus.

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

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

>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.

Now you're confusing me. Do you want to recreate the Middle Ages as
they really were or do you want to (re)create the Middle Ages of the
Arthurian-romance tournament?

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

>HR>>My argument is, that having such a focus *in heraldry* is fully
>HR>>compatible with the purposes of the SCA as expressed in Corpora, and
>HR>>by no means will doing so crush out diversity in other areas, which
>HR>>is what Arval appears to be afraid of.

>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)

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

>-- 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 tha
>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.

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

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

>HR>>the focus of the aspects of "western culture" that we in the SCA are
>HR>>trying to emulate: the noble tourneying society of the High Middle
>HR>>Ages.

>HR>... In any case the thing I took exception to was the claim that
>HR>Denmark was not part of Western Medieval Culture.

>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.

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

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

>HR>>The people who got together to hold the first backyard tournament
>HR>>didn't
>HR>>get together to hold a multicultural medieval Disneyland, they got
>HR>>together to hold an Arthurian-romance tournament, and if there is going
>HR>>to be any consistency in the SCA that is the sort of focus that is
>HR>>essential.

>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.

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

>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.

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



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
------------
"I know there are some people in the world who do not tolerate their
fellow human beings, and I just can't _stand_ people like that!"
                                (after Tom Lehrer)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca