Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Arrow number Two ...
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:32:53

    Ciaran wrote:

 CB>   Because Pagans are the only group listed above who walk around
 CB> nowadays wearing one.  Other groups wear them as well, but 
 CB> I'm not trying to speak for them, although I'd be delighted
 CB> to see everyone walking around wearing one.

 I'd be delighted to see everyone walking around wearing a swastika, too,
 since it would imply that the popular prejudice against this ancient
 symbol of good had been overcome. Most people, however, would be upset
 because they would take it to mean that everybody had become pro-Nazi. The
 same applies to pentacles; in this case, it doesn't matter how you and I
 feel about it - what matters is what other people feel about it, and until
 you can change *their* minds, strong opinion on our part counts little.

 Why not choose an additional symbol to use, one that *is* registerable?
 Christians, for example, use any number of them in addition to the cross -
 the fish and the chrysmon (chi-rho symbol) to name just two.

 CB>   As a Pagan, I take great pride in the work that has been
 CB> accomplished to regain acceptance of the religious symbols
 CB> which are particular to my tradition.  I am sorry to hear
 CB> that a group with whom I have some interest in interacting
 CB> has chosen to ban the use of one of these symbols.

 CB>   Originally, I erroneously believed that the ban was universal,
 CB> and applied to personal ornamentation as well.  I understand
 CB> now that it is only a ban on your registry of all of that
 CB> heraldry stuff (hey, I'm just a blacksmith -- if you want
 CB> something painted on it, find a painter).

 One of the most tiresome aspects of this issue is having to continually
 correct people who equate "can't register it in armory" with "banned".

 (Adam had the same problem. He had every damned tree in the forest to eat
 from, except one. Guess what happened. There's always *one* guy who can't
 leave well enough alone, and screws it up for everybody else....)

 CB>   That still doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about
 CB> coming to an event where folks are standing around with 
 CB> penants and shields bearing any number of symbols which are
 CB> heavily identified with the crusaders who destroyed so much
 CB> of my religion's heretage -- especially since I am forbidden
 CB> to bear a symbol which proudly proclaims the advancing
 CB> recovery of the folk traditions of ancient europe.

 I hate to be the one to break the news, but (a) medieval Europe was
 overwhelmingly Christian, at least in the formal sense, and that
 especially applies to the socioeconomic category we deal with, and  (b)
 that's what we're trying to "recreate" here. "The advancing recovery of
 the folk traditions of ancient europe" may be a legitimate part of some
 fantasy alternate time-line, but that's not what *this* organization is
 about - it's about "Pre-Seventeenth Century Western Europe", and in
 pre-seventeenth century western Europe, Christian symbols were used in
 armory and Pagan symbols were not. It's that simple. If you want to try to
 change things, inventing a time machine is about your only option.

 A case can be made (as Lord Treblerose does quite respectably) that the
 pentacle is actually, if anything, a *Christian* symbol in Period - but
 since its status as a "religious symbol" is not why it was disallowed for
 registration, all such discussion is moot.

 CB>   I'm also curious how your citizendry respond when someone
 CB> wears as personal adornment a symbol which has been officially
 CB> banned in heraldry.

 We have a Baron in Ansteorra who has a swastika tatooed on his arm.
 Needless to say, he is of the "barbarian biker" persuasion and never wears
 garb with sleeves. What are we supposed to do? Walk up to him with a
 beaker of acid and say, "Excuse me, your Excellency, would you mind
 sticking your arm out and looking over that way for a second?"

 Most people don't know. Of those that know, most don't care: so long as
 they can wear it or do pretty much whatever else they want with it, they
 DON'T INSIST THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO REGISTER IT IN THEIR ARMORY. I know
 quite a few "pagans" (my lady wife among them) who have registered armory;
 most of them LISTENED when we pointed out that GRAPHIC
 POLITICAL/AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT IS NOT WHAT ARMORY IS FOR; good
 armory is "picking something easily recongnizable" that then comes to mean
 whatever you make it mean. This is the route that the Blue Feather folks
 have chosen (they don't, for example, go around trying to jawbone the
 College of Arms into allowing the registration of, say, pink triangles),
 and I applaud them for it.

 CB>   Kind of a coming together of the tribes after so long a
 CB> feud, but the side that lost isn't permitted to show it's
 CB> reclaimation flag.

 That's because we're recreating the period when they lost. I'm amazed that
 this seems to come as a surprise to you. The SCA is not here to recreate
 "the Middle Ages as we wish they had turned out", but rather as they
 actually were. This is a recreationist, not a revisionist, organization.

 CB>   Admittedly, there are many symbols which would be much more
 CB> historically correct for the knights of Lithuania or the hordes
 CB> of Mongol (Hail, Attila, who led our people to the promised
 CB> land!), and I'm sure people use these frequently.

 CB>   However, for your organization to specifically ban a symbol
 CB> which has been claimed by a modern religion (sp: Wicca, and
 CB> indirectly by Pagans in general), brings to mind many questions
 CB> which have _NOT_ been adequately answered by your heirarchy
 CB> (such as it is), as can be easily evidenced by this continuing
 CB> harranging in the commons until late into the evening until
 CB> the constables wander through and ask us to break it up (oblig.
 CB> not-so-old-we-can't-recognise-it reference).

 All points raised (even the specious religious-discrimination ones and the
 erroneous US Constitutional ones) have been answered, at great length. I
 get the impression that those who didn't like the answers chose not to
 listen; they certainly continue to choose not to understand, preferring (I
 suspect) their underdog status and their more comforting conspiracy
 theories to actually Facing Reality.

 CB>   One of your membership, who has been very chivalrous and,
 CB> indeed, even kind, has explained to me a great deal about this
 CB> bandying about, and has helped be resolve most of my differences
 CB> so far -- with the exception of this one.

 CB>   Face it.  Your executive body has banned the use of a symbol
 CB> which some of your membership hold very dear and in high
 CB> regard.  The reasons for banning it were, in the humble opinion
 CB> of myself and apparently others, inadequate considering the
 CB> apparent bigotry in identifying the pentacle as a symbol of
 CB> evil.

 Face it. The pentacle has been brought into disrepute by wacko groups who
 have gotten (and continue to get) more bad publicity in a year than any
 good publicity (if any) that the "pagan revival" has gotten in the last
 hundred. That's not the fault of "our executive body". They can't rewrite
 public opinion; all they can do is deal with it as best they can. If you
 succeed in changing public opinion to the extent that it is no longer a
 problem, I'm sure they'll be happy to reconsider. When I see headlines in
 a newspaper about "Local Pagans Help the Homeless" to match the "Satanist
 Drug Ring Broken" type, then I'll expect some progress.

 Those who think they are being oppressed are advised that there are
 organizations who exist for the express purpose of resisting such things
 (as the SCA does not), and are encouraged to join them and support their
 efforts. It's not the SCA's job to "fight for pagan rights", any more than
 it's the SCA's job to fight for *anybody's* rights - the SCA's job is to
 attempt to research and recreate the Middle Ages. Let's get on with it,
 and drop these peripheral issues.

 CB>   No, I don't think this is necessarily "a fight worth
 CB> fighting compared to our society's problems", but I will not
 CB> join an organization which censures particular religious symbols
 CB> and then acts baffled when folks get upset.

 Speaking only for myself, I would be happy if all of the people who
 persist in misunderstanding what is actually going on here would go
 somewhere else.

 CB>   _UNLESS_ the organization can explain itself well enough that
 CB> its membership are satisfied.

 Has been done, at great length. Problem is, some people appear not to be
 able to understand plain English.

 CB>   Just reading this board for the last week, it doesn't seem
 CB> like your membership is entirely or even approximately
 CB> satisfied.

 Certainly the persistent noisemakers aren't satisfied, but that hardly
 equates to "the membership".

 CB>   Just what are your means for seeking redress for actions
 CB> of your executive committee?  Surely you must have some
 CB> way to question the decisions of your executives?  With this
 CB> much outcry, how did such an unpopular decision get approved?

 To begin with, what evidence do you have that this is such an "unpopular
 decision"? Certainly, most of the people who don't like it have chosen to
 make noise about it, but that's hardly a statistically valid sample. We
 don't run things by applause-meter; the amount of noise made is no more an
 accurate gauge of popular opinion here than it is in mundane politics. You
 are viewing a tempest in a teapot and wondering why the sky doesn't fall.
 Time for a reality check.

    Tadhg
    who is thinking of quitting this organization and joining one that has
    something to do with the Middle Ages.


 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca